ADJ12719177 · September 4, 2026

The petition failed because it did not specify in detail how the evidence failed to support the findings, contained conclusory assertions unsupported by detailed argument, was procedurally improper in attaching documents, and the WCJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence and entitled to deference.

From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, has filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 26, 2026. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) and the Opinion on Decision of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report and Opinion on Decision, which we adopt and incorporate, as quoted below, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny the Petition for Reconsideration. I. Up through July 1, 2024, petitions for reconsideration were subject to former Labor Code 1 section 5909, which provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) During the period from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026, petitions for reconsideration were subject to former section 5909, which stated in relevant part that:

Applicant's petition for reconsideration failed to specify in detail how the evidence failed to support the findings and contained broad, unsupported accusations.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure meant the petition did not raise cognizable objections to the WCJ's decision, leading to denial.

From the decision · page 3As a threshold matter, a petition for reconsideration that challenges the factual sufficiency of a decision must “specify in detail” how the evidence fails to support the findings; conclusory assertions and general allegations unsupported by argument in full detail do not raise cognizable objections to a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision. (Michon v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) Cal.App.3d 917; City of Los Angeles DOT v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 1264, 1267.) Much of petitioner’s submission consists of broad accusations of “prejudice” and “favoritism” unsupported by specific record citations sufficient to satisfy this standard. Applicant’s petition is also unintelligible in many aspects and fails to comply with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10205.12 et. seq. with regard to form and size

The petition improperly attached new documentary evidence without meeting procedural requirements.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The procedural impropriety led to disregarding the new evidence and contributed to denial of the petition.

From the decision · page 4The attachment of these documents to the Petition is procedurally improper. California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10945, subdivision (c)(2) – (3), expressly prohibits the filing with a petition for reconsideration of “documents previously received in evidence or rejected upon objection” or “new documentary evidence,” except as permitted by Labor Code section 5903, subdivision (d). To proceed under section 5903(d), the petitioner must establish that the evidence is material and that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at the trial. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10974 [petition to introduce new evidence].)

The WCJ found applicant not credible, supported by substantial evidence including contradictions with documentary evidence and social media postings.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The credibility finding was entitled to deference and was a key reason for denying the petition.

From the decision · page 6V. Petitioner’s Challenge to the Credibility Determination Petitioner challenges the Court’s determination that she was not a credible witness. The determination of witness credibility is a matter committed to the trier of fact, who has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to weigh their testimony against the documentary record. The Appeals Board accords substantial deference to such determinations. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318–319; Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281; County of San Bernardino v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ramirez) (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 679.) Petitioner’s invocation of the so-called “Lamb rule” is misplaced; Lamb holds that the Board may not arbitrarily disregard credible testimony, not that the trier of fact must credit testimony the trier finds incredible.

Labor Code sections 5909, 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10945, 10974

Petitions for reconsideration are subject to Labor Code section 5909 and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10945, subdivision (c)(2) – (3), which prohibit filing new documentary evidence except as permitted by Labor Code section 5903, subdivision (d).

Applied to disregard new documentary evidence attached to petition for reconsideration and reject petition on procedural grounds.

From the decision · page 4The attachment of these documents to the Petition is procedurally improper. California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10945, subdivision (c)(2) – (3), expressly prohibits the filing with a petition for reconsideration of “documents previously received in evidence or rejected upon objection” or “new documentary evidence,” except as permitted by Labor Code section 5903, subdivision (d). To proceed under section 5903(d), the petitioner must establish that the evidence is material and that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at the trial. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10974 [petition to introduce new evidence].)

Michon v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) Cal.App.3d 917; City of Los Angeles DOT v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 1264, 1267

Petition for reconsideration must specify in detail how the evidence fails to support findings; conclusory assertions unsupported by detailed argument do not raise cognizable objections.

Applied to reject petition for reconsideration that contained broad accusations unsupported by specific record citations.

From the decision · page 3As a threshold matter, a petition for reconsideration that challenges the factual sufficiency of a decision must “specify in detail” how the evidence fails to support the findings; conclusory assertions and general allegations unsupported by argument in full detail do not raise cognizable objections to a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision. (Michon v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) Cal.App.3d 917; City of Los Angeles DOT v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 1264, 1267.) Much of petitioner’s submission consists of broad accusations of “prejudice” and “favoritism” unsupported by specific record citations sufficient to satisfy this standard. Applicant’s petition is also unintelligible in many aspects and fails to comply with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10205.12 et. seq. with regard to form and size

Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319; Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281

Credibility determinations by the trier of fact are entitled to substantial deference and will not be overturned absent evidence of considerable substantiality to the contrary.

Applied to uphold WCJ's credibility findings against applicant's challenge.

From the decision · page 6V. Petitioner’s Challenge to the Credibility Determination Petitioner challenges the Court’s determination that she was not a credible witness. The determination of witness credibility is a matter committed to the trier of fact, who has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to weigh their testimony against the documentary record. The Appeals Board accords substantial deference to such determinations. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318–319; Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281; County of San Bernardino v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ramirez) (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 679.) Petitioner’s invocation of the so-called “Lamb rule” is misplaced; Lamb holds that the Board may not arbitrarily disregard credible testimony, not that the trier of fact must credit testimony the trier finds incredible.

The WCJ found applicant not to be a credible witness, supported by substantial evidence including contradictions with documentary evidence and social media postings.

From the decision · page 6V. Petitioner’s Challenge to the Credibility Determination Petitioner challenges the Court’s determination that she was not a credible witness. The determination of witness credibility is a matter committed to the trier of fact, who has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to weigh their testimony against the documentary record. The Appeals Board accords substantial deference to such determinations. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318–319; Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281; County of San Bernardino v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ramirez) (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 679.) Petitioner’s invocation of the so-called “Lamb rule” is misplaced; Lamb holds that the Board may not arbitrarily disregard credible testimony, not that the trier of fact must credit testimony the trier finds incredible.