What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as untimely; no jurisdiction to consider petition; order rejecting declaration of readiness to proceed not disturbed.
Petition for reconsideration filed by applicant seeking to set aside dismissal order and order rejecting declaration of readiness to proceed; WCJ issued dismissal order on May 4, 2017; petition found untimely and dismissed by WCAB panel on July 15, 2025.
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 filed more than a year after the applicant received the dismissal order, exceeding the 25-day filing deadline, making it untimely and jurisdictionally barred.
From the decision · page 4The Petition for Reconsideration in this matter was filed on May 7, 2025. Thus, the filing date of the petition was more than a year after the service of the Dismissal Order on April 17, 2024, and well over the 25 days permitted by law. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) It was also well beyond any extension of time applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and subject to dismissal. As the time limit for filing a reconsideration petition is jurisdictional, we have no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1076; Rymer v. Hagler, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1182; Scott, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 984; Hinojoza, supra, 201 Cal.App.2d at p. 549.)