ADJ4399741 · August 3, 2026

The WCAB found that the WCJ's decision was incorrect in relying on SB 228, SB 899 and SB 863 to alter the 1984 Award and granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinding the decision and remanding for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 7Following applicant’s logic, the award of medical treatment to applicant in 1984 means that defendant is required to follow the procedures as they existed in 1984 when applicant received his award. Any analysis of the effect of legislative changes requires that we first look to the statutory language, and without more, the WCJ’s reliance on and consideration of SB 228, SB 899 and SB 863 is simply incorrect. The WCJ’s decision must “set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on,” so that “the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc) (citing Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).) This responsibility necessarily requires analysis of the correct statutory language and the relevant decisional law. Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the decision and return the matter to the WCJ for a new decision.

The WCJ found that SB 228, SB 899 and SB 863 amend or alter the 1984 Award.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This finding was the basis for the defendant's petition for reconsideration and the subsequent review by the WCAB.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found that “[a]pplicant met his burden to prove that SB 228, SB 899 and SB 863 amends or alters Judge Gray’s January 26, 1984 Award.” Defendant contends that the Labor Code provisions that implemented the utilization review (UR) process apply to any requests for medical treatment by applicant made after the effective date of the statutes. We received an Answer from applicant, who is in pro per. We received a Report and Recommendation (Report) from the WCJ that recommends that we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the Answer and the contents of the Report. 1 Based on our review of the record, and as discussed below, we will

The WCAB found that the WCJ's reliance on SB 228, SB 899 and SB 863 to alter the 1984 Award was incorrect.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This led to the grant of the petition for reconsideration and the rescission of the WCJ's decision.

From the decision · page 7Following applicant’s logic, the award of medical treatment to applicant in 1984 means that defendant is required to follow the procedures as they existed in 1984 when applicant received his award. Any analysis of the effect of legislative changes requires that we first look to the statutory language, and without more, the WCJ’s reliance on and consideration of SB 228, SB 899 and SB 863 is simply incorrect. The WCJ’s decision must “set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on,” so that “the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc) (citing Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).) This responsibility necessarily requires analysis of the correct statutory language and the relevant decisional law. Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the decision and return the matter to the WCJ for a new decision.

Lab. Code, § 5909

A petition for reconsideration must be 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 as required by section 5909(a).

From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION I. Former Labor Code section 5909 2 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.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.

The WCJ's decision was a final decision concerning jurisdiction, a threshold issue, thus the petition for reconsideration was proper.

From the decision · page 4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report, the Report was served on June 3, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 3, 2026. 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 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 June 3, 2026. II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that either “determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

Lab. Code, § 5304

The Appeals Board has jurisdiction over controversies relating to medical treatment under sections 4600 to 4605.

The Appeals Board retains jurisdiction over medical treatment disputes except as provided by section 4610.5.

From the decision · page 6Cal.4th 1231, 1237, 1238 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1209] [discussing newly amended sections 4605, 4061 and 4062 and newly enacted section 4603.2(a) in the context of section 84 of SB 863].) Section 4600 requires that an employer provide reasonable and necessary medical treatment to “cure or relieve” an employee from the effects of their industrial injury. This requirement to provide medical treatment for a workplace injury continues throughout the entire life of the employee unless the parties specifically resolve the issue of medical treatment. (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Dept. of Ind. Relations (1929) 207 Cal. 144; Ferguson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1613, fn. 12 [60 Cal.Comp.Cases 275].) The Appeals Board’s jurisdiction with respect to medical treatment disputes is set forth in sections 4604 and 5304.