What the panel ordered
Petitions for Reconsideration and Removal conditionally filed by applicant are not accepted for filing due to lack of significant change in circumstances.p. 2
Petitions for Reconsideration and Removal conditionally filed by applicant were transmitted to the Appeals Board and reviewed for acceptance.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 6, 2026, March 13, 2025, July 15, 2024.
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 Appeals Board did not find a significant change in circumstances or new evidence to accept the petitions for reconsideration and removal filed by the applicant, and acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909.
From the decision · page 1On April 18, 2025, the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) at the Sacramento district office issued a Findings and Order (F&O) declaring applicant to be a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10430. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10430.) The Order declaring that applicant is a vexatious litigant is final. Under WCAB Rule 10430(f), when a person who has been designated as a vexatious litigant proposes to file a petition for reconsideration, removal or disqualification, it is “conditionally filed.” The petition is only accepted as properly filed after approval by the Appeals Board. Applicant, in pro per, has conditionally filed a Petition for Reconsideration on May 18, 2026, listing case number ADJ3006563 only. Applicant has also conditionally filed a Petition for Removal on June 12, 2026, listing case numbers ADJ3006563 and ADJ18423850. The PWCJ issued a Report on each of the conditionally filed Petitions, and transmitted the cases to the Appeals Board. We have considered the contents of the Petitions and the record in the cases. Based on our review, we do not find a significant change in circumstances, such as new or newly discovered evidence or change in the law, that has materially affected the issue of fact or law that was
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order under WCAB Rule 10430.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This status required conditional filing and review of petitions for reconsideration and removal.
From the decision · page 1On April 18, 2025, the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) at the Sacramento district office issued a Findings and Order (F&O) declaring applicant to be a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10430. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10430.) The Order declaring that applicant is a vexatious litigant is final. Under WCAB Rule 10430(f), when a person who has been designated as a vexatious litigant proposes to file a petition for reconsideration, removal or disqualification, it is “conditionally filed.” The petition is only accepted as properly filed after approval by the Appeals Board. Applicant, in pro per, has conditionally filed a Petition for Reconsideration on May 18, 2026, listing case number ADJ3006563 only. Applicant has also conditionally filed a Petition for Removal on June 12, 2026, listing case numbers ADJ3006563 and ADJ18423850. The PWCJ issued a Report on each of the conditionally filed Petitions, and transmitted the cases to the Appeals Board. We have considered the contents of the Petitions and the record in the cases. Based on our review, we do not find a significant change in circumstances, such as new or newly discovered evidence or change in the law, that has materially affected the issue of fact or law that was
No significant change in circumstances, new evidence, or change in law was found to justify acceptance of the petitions.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of new material facts or law led to denial of petitions for reconsideration and removal.
From the decision · page 1On April 18, 2025, the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) at the Sacramento district office issued a Findings and Order (F&O) declaring applicant to be a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10430. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10430.) The Order declaring that applicant is a vexatious litigant is final. Under WCAB Rule 10430(f), when a person who has been designated as a vexatious litigant proposes to file a petition for reconsideration, removal or disqualification, it is “conditionally filed.” The petition is only accepted as properly filed after approval by the Appeals Board. Applicant, in pro per, has conditionally filed a Petition for Reconsideration on May 18, 2026, listing case number ADJ3006563 only. Applicant has also conditionally filed a Petition for Removal on June 12, 2026, listing case numbers ADJ3006563 and ADJ18423850. The PWCJ issued a Report on each of the conditionally filed Petitions, and transmitted the cases to the Appeals Board. We have considered the contents of the Petitions and the record in the cases. Based on our review, we do not find a significant change in circumstances, such as new or newly discovered evidence or change in the law, that has materially affected the issue of fact or law that was
The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909 to decide on the petitions.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Timely action on the petitions supports the denial outcome.
From the decision · page 2previously finally determined against the vexatious litigant. Accordingly, the Petitions are not accepted for filing. Preliminarily, former Labor Code section 5909 1 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: (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.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 5909
Petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Appeals Board acted on the petition within the 60-day period from transmission, thus timely acting on the petition.
From the decision · page 2previously finally determined against the vexatious litigant. Accordingly, the Petitions are not accepted for filing. Preliminarily, former Labor Code section 5909 1 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: (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.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10430
Pre-filing review and restrictions on vexatious litigants under WCAB Rule 10430.
Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant subject to pre-filing order, affecting the filing of petitions.
From the decision · page 1On April 18, 2025, the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) at the Sacramento district office issued a Findings and Order (F&O) declaring applicant to be a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10430. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10430.) The Order declaring that applicant is a vexatious litigant is final. Under WCAB Rule 10430(f), when a person who has been designated as a vexatious litigant proposes to file a petition for reconsideration, removal or disqualification, it is “conditionally filed.” The petition is only accepted as properly filed after approval by the Appeals Board. Applicant, in pro per, has conditionally filed a Petition for Reconsideration on May 18, 2026, listing case number ADJ3006563 only. Applicant has also conditionally filed a Petition for Removal on June 12, 2026, listing case numbers ADJ3006563 and ADJ18423850. The PWCJ issued a Report on each of the conditionally filed Petitions, and transmitted the cases to the Appeals Board. We have considered the contents of the Petitions and the record in the cases. Based on our review, we do not find a significant change in circumstances, such as new or newly discovered evidence or change in the law, that has materially affected the issue of fact or law that was
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Service of the Report and transmission of the cases to the Appeals Board on May 22, 2026, provided actual notice to the parties of the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on the petitions.
From the decision · page 3on May 22, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the cases to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on May 22, 2026. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconsideration conditionally filed on May 18, 2026, listing case number ADJ3006563 and the Petition for Removal conditionally filed on June 12, 2026, listing case numbers ADJ3006563 and ADJ18423850 are not accepted for filing.
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.