What the panel ordered
Petitions for Reconsideration are denied.p. 3
Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Applicant and former attorney were denied by the WCAB panel, adopting and incorporating the WCJ's Reports and Opinion on Decision.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold June 14, 2024.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petitions for reconsideration were denied because the applicant's petition was untimely as to certain orders, lacked verification, and failed to present new credible evidence; the court found no bad faith or sanctionable conduct by the defendant regarding attorney fee payment delays.
From the decision · page 6C.C.R. 10940(c) requires that a Petition for Reconsideration "shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record." The appeals board has discretion to dismiss such Petitions for failure to file a verification. See e.g. Safeway Stores v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. of California & Phillip Carter, 47 Cal. Comp. Cases 455 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 18, 1982). The Petition filed herein is neither signed nor verified under oath and is therefore subject to dismissal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was not verified under oath as required by C.C.R. 10940(c).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural defect justified dismissal of the petition.
From the decision · page 6C.C.R. 10940(c) requires that a Petition for Reconsideration "shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record." The appeals board has discretion to dismiss such Petitions for failure to file a verification. See e.g. Safeway Stores v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. of California & Phillip Carter, 47 Cal. Comp. Cases 455 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 18, 1982). The Petition filed herein is neither signed nor verified under oath and is therefore subject to dismissal.
Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was untimely as to the April 6, 2026 Order, filed after the 25-day deadline.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The untimeliness barred reconsideration of that order.
No bad faith or sanctionable conduct was found by the court regarding defendant's delay in paying attorney fees and interest.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This negated grounds for penalties or sanctions against defendant.
From the decision · page 17This Court agrees. Similarly, the record contains no evidence that defendant acted in bad faith such that the Court should impose sanctions pursuant to §5 813. The legal uncertainty of this situation is evidenced by the disparate positions taken by lien claimant and defendant, neither of which are identical to the findings of the Court. In consideration of this and defendant's prior voluntary payment of interest, the record does not support a finding that defendant acted in bad faith. As such, the Court declines to impose sanctions against defendant. Accordingly, as to the relief requested by the office of Rowen, Gurvey & Win by way of its November 5, 2024 Petition for Penalties, Fees, and Sanctions, this Petition is DENIED.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code §5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within the 60-day period from case transmission on June 2, 2026.
From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 2, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, August 1, 2026. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, August 3, 2026. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).) This decision is issued by or on Monday, August 3, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a). Section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides notice to the Appeals Board. Thus, the requirement in subdivision (1) ensures that the parties are notified of the accurate date for the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on a petition.
Labor Code §5814
Penalties pursuant to Labor Code §5814 are payable to the applicant, not lien claimants; lien claimants lack standing to pursue such penalties on their own behalf.
The court denied the lien claimant's petition for penalties and sanctions as it lacked standing and no bad faith was found by defendant.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's failure to verify the petition and present new credible evidence, and the court's finding of no bad faith by defendant in payment delay.
From the decision · page 6C.C.R. 10940(c) requires that a Petition for Reconsideration "shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record." The appeals board has discretion to dismiss such Petitions for failure to file a verification. See e.g. Safeway Stores v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. of California & Phillip Carter, 47 Cal. Comp. Cases 455 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 18, 1982). The Petition filed herein is neither signed nor verified under oath and is therefore subject to dismissal.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.