What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed.
Petition for Reconsideration filed and dismissed as successive and untimely.
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 petition for reconsideration was dismissed as successive because the applicant did not prevail on the prior petition and did not file a timely writ of review, thus is bound by the prior decision.
From the decision · page 2II. It is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on August 19, 2025, and the petition was acted on within 60 days on October 20, 2025.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timely action satisfied the requirement under Labor Code section 5909 for the Appeals Board to act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on August 19, 2025 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, October 18, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, October 20, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)2 This decision is issued by or on Monday, October 20, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
The applicant did not file a timely petition for writ of review after the prior decision on venue was left undisturbed.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because the applicant did not file a timely writ of review, he is bound by the prior decision and cannot file a successive petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3This issue was decided against applicant in our July 17, 2024 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, where we left the Presiding Judge's September 8, 2023 Order denying change of venue undisturbed. Applicant did not file a timely petition for writ of review. Therefore he is bound by our prior decision. Accordingly, the current petition for reconsideration will be dismissed as successive. If we were not dismissing the petition as successive, we would have denied it on the merits for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we would adopt and incorporate. We agree with the WCJ that the July 21, 2025 Joint Order Dismissing Cases was directly served on applicant by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in compliance with WCAB rule 10628(c) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10628) despite the concurrent designation of service.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on it within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Appeals Board acted on the petition within the 60-day period as required by section 5909(a).
From the decision · page 1I. Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code1 section 5909 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.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155; Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Mazzanti) (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 22
A party who fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration cannot file a successive petition unless newly aggrieved.
The petition was dismissed as successive because the applicant did not prevail on the prior petition and did not file a timely writ of review.
From the decision · page 2II. It is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases
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.