What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as premature and returned the matter to the WCJ to treat the petition as a petition to set aside the Order and set a hearing for applicant to provide evidence.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Order Dismissing Applications for Adjudication of Claim with Prejudice, which dismissed the applications due to applicant's failure to appear at hearings. The WCJ recommended dismissal of the petition as premature and remand to treat the petition as a petition to set aside the order.
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 dismissed as premature because the Appeals Board had not yet acted on the petition within the required 60-day period after transmission to the Appeals Board, and the case was remanded to the WCJ to treat the petition as a petition to set aside the order.
From the decision · page 5Accordingly, as recommended by the WCJ, we dismiss the Petition as premature. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ may treat the Petition as a petition to set aside and set a hearing so applicant can provide evidence in support of the arguments contained in the Petition and create a record upon which a decision can be made by the WCJ. After the WCJ issues a decision, any aggrieved person may then timely seek reconsideration of that decision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant failed to appear at multiple hearings and did not file a written objection to the Notice of Intention to Dismiss within 10 days.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure led to the WCJ's dismissal of the applications for adjudication with prejudice.
From the decision · page 2Applicant did not appear at the hearing on January 28, 2025; defendant was able to reach her by phone, and she stated that she needed time to retain an attorney. (1/28/25 MOH, p. 1.) The WCJ then issued a "Notice of Intention to Issue Order Dismissing Application for Adjudication of Claim with Prejudice" (NIT) that the WCJ would dismiss both of applicant's applications for adjudication if she did not file a written objection within 10 days. Based on our review, no objection was filed.
The Report and Recommendation was served and the case transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 12, 2025, providing notice to the parties of the transmission date.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on the petition, making the petition premature at the time of the decision.
From the decision · page 4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on March 12, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 12, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with Labor Code section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on March 12, 2025.
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 the petition within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board, and parties must be notified of the transmission date.
From the decision · page 3I. Former Labor Code 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, Labor Code 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.
Labor Code section 5803
The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause upon notice and opportunity to be heard.
The Appeals Board may dismiss an application or alter an order if good cause appears, but a proper record must be created for review.
From the decision · page 4II. The Appeals Board "has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards.... At any time, upon notice and after an opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor. (Lab. Code, § 5803.) Further, WCAB Rule 10832 states the Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a).) However, there must be a complete record for our review of the case. "[A] proper record enables any reviewing tribunal, be it the Board on reconsideration or a court on further appeal, to understand the basis for the decision." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66
WCAB Rule 10832
The Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application.
The rule authorizes the Appeals Board to dismiss applications and issue notices of intention for proper purposes.
From the decision · page 4II. The Appeals Board "has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards.... At any time, upon notice and after an opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor. (Lab. Code, § 5803.) Further, WCAB Rule 10832 states the Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including dismissing an application. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a).) However, there must be a complete record for our review of the case. "[A] proper record enables any reviewing tribunal, be it the Board on reconsideration or a court on further appeal, to understand the basis for the decision." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66
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.