SIMILARCASE

Loading

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ13890820 · October 16, 2023

Petition for Reconsideration granted; matter referred for status conference; final decision deferred pending further review of merits.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 0
Authorities named: 1
District office: Van Nuys

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; matter referred for status conference; final decision deferred pending further review of merits.

Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the May 10, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order denying discrimination under Labor Code section 132a; the WCJ recommended denial and dismissal; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.

Read the official decision →

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.

Discrimination under Labor Code §132aApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board found that the Appeals Board's failure to act on the petition within 60 days was an error and granted reconsideration to allow further review of the discrimination claim under Labor Code section 132a.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration and removal of the May 10, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant was not subject to discrimination in violation of Labor Code1 section 132a and denied applicant's petition for a violation of section 132a.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

ADJ13890820 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Applicant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on June 5, 2023.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This filing date triggered the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on the petition.

From the decision · page 2I. A petition is generally considered denied by operation of law if the Appeals Board does not grant the petition within 60 days after it is filed. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, we believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice..." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. This occurred because the Appeals Board had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision, holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Id.) In this case, applicant filed the Petition on June 5, 2023. Thereafter, the Appeals Board failed to act on the petition within 60 days, through no fault of the parties. Therefore, considering that the Appeals Board's failure to act on that petition was in error, we find that our time to act on applicant's Petition was tolled.

The Appeals Board failed to act on the petition within 60 days through no fault of the parties.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The failure tolled the time to act and justified granting reconsideration to protect applicant's due process rights.

From the decision · page 2I. A petition is generally considered denied by operation of law if the Appeals Board does not grant the petition within 60 days after it is filed. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, we believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice..." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. This occurred because the Appeals Board had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision, holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Id.) In this case, applicant filed the Petition on June 5, 2023. Thereafter, the Appeals Board failed to act on the petition within 60 days, through no fault of the parties. Therefore, considering that the Appeals Board's failure to act on that petition was in error, we find that our time to act on applicant's Petition was tolled.