ADJ19018827 — California WCAB decision

ADJ19018827 · June 30, 2026

The WCAB panel dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as untimely and recommended the matter be returned to the WCJ to treat the Petition as a Petition to Set Aside the Order and hold a hearing to create a record on good cause to vacate or reinstate the Application.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Anaheim

What the panel ordered

Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Order Dismissing Application issued on July 22, 2025, which was dismissed by the WCAB panel on June 30, 2026.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was not acted upon within the required timeframe and the matter was recommended to be treated as a petition to set aside the order with a hearing to create a record.

From the decision · page 1We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) be denied for being untimely but is premature or not ripe as to whether there is "good cause" to vacate or set aside the Order. The WCJ recommends the Petition be treated as a "Petition to Vacate" or "Petition to Set Aside" and the matter be returned to the WCJ to hold hearings for a clear record to be created on whether there is "good cause" to vacate or set aside the Order or "good cause" to reinstate the Application. We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition as one seeking reconsideration. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ may treat the Petition as one to set aside the Order.

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 must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board under Labor Code section 5909.

The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on May 1, 2026, and the decision was issued on June 30, 2026, within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 3Preliminarily, former Labor section 59091 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:

Labor Code section 5803

The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend any order for good cause under Labor Code section 5803.

The WCAB recommended the Petition be treated as a petition to set aside the Order and hold a hearing to create a record on good cause.

From the decision · page 4II. We now turn to the merits of the Petition. Pursuant to section 5803, "[t]he appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]" and "[a]t any time, upon notice and after the 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.) WCAB Rule 10755 provides in relevant part that: Where a required party, after notice, fails to appear at a mandatory settlement conference in the case in chief:

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

Decisions must be based on admitted evidence in the record as required by Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001).

The WCJ's Order was not based on admitted evidence as no hearing or evidence was presented regarding applicant's absence or notice of hearings.

From the decision · page 5Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).) The "WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Id. at p. 475.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]" (Id. at p. 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].) "For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Ibid.)

ADJ19018827 · June 30, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page