What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant and denied by the Appeals Board panel.
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 was timely filed as demonstrated by the Batch ID showing e-filing on June 4, 2024, within the 25-day limit, and the Board acted within 60 days of case transmission to deny the petition on September 20, 2024.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the supplemental pleading, and the contents of the report 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, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration was e-filed on June 4, 2024, as shown by the Batch ID page.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This demonstrated the petition was timely filed within the 25-day limit, allowing the Board to consider it.
From the decision · page 2On July 12, 2024, defendant filed correspondence regarding the Petition for Reconsideration stating that the Petition did not show up in EAMS and attaching a copy of the Petition for Reconsideration and a document showing the EAMS Batch ID which states, "Submission of this eform through EAMS constitutes service upon any internal DWC unit Batch ID: 40838643 Date: 06/04/2024 09:55:16 AM." The Proof of Service confirms that the Petition was e-filed on June 4, 2024, and that applicant's attorney was served with the Petition by U.S. Mail. This proof of service is further supported by applicant's Answer, which was filed on June 19, 2024.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Initially opined insufficient evidence to conclude colon cancer was caused by workplace exposures; later opined exposures could not be ruled out as cause within latency period of years to decades.
From the decision · page 7The parties proceeded to Medical Legal Evaluation by Timur S. Durrani, M.D., M.P.H., in the specialty of Occupational Medical and Toxicology. His first report, dated 2/14/2022, diagnosed Applicant with an invasive adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon. He also in that report, opined "There is insufficient evidence to conclude with reasonable medical probability, that the applicant's colon cancer was caused by her work place exposures." He further opined insufficient evidence to determine apportionment, permanent and stationary status or give a rating of whole person impairment. Likewise, in his second report, dated 5/11/2022, he opined, "While it is possible her exposure caused her colon cancer, there is insufficient evidence to conclude, with reasonable medical probability, that the applicant's colon cancer was caused by her work place exposures."
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900, 5909; California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 10600, 10605, 10615, 10940, 10964
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of service of the final decision and received by the WCAB within that time to be timely.
The petition was timely filed as shown by the Batch ID and the Board acted within 60 days of case transmission.
From the decision · page 1I. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe &
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Batch ID page showing e-filing on June 4, 2024, confirming timely filing of Petition for Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2On July 12, 2024, defendant filed correspondence regarding the Petition for Reconsideration stating that the Petition did not show up in EAMS and attaching a copy of the Petition for Reconsideration and a document showing the EAMS Batch ID which states, "Submission of this eform through EAMS constitutes service upon any internal DWC unit Batch ID: 40838643 Date: 06/04/2024 09:55:16 AM." The Proof of Service confirms that the Petition was e-filed on June 4, 2024, and that applicant's attorney was served with the Petition by U.S. Mail. This proof of service is further supported by applicant's Answer, which was filed on June 19, 2024.
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.