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.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition filed February 19, 2026, as the case was transmitted on February 23, 2026, and the decision was issued on April 24, 2026.
From the decision · page 1I.
Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code1 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, 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 sections 5900, 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
No final order had issued in this case, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 2II.
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. (Pointer)
(1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v.
A party who fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration cannot file a successive petition unless newly aggrieved.
The current petition raised issues already raised in a prior petition filed December 9, 2024, so it was dismissed as successive.
From the decision · page 4Here, the petition for reconsideration again raises issues raised in the Petition for
Reconsideration filed on December 9, 2024. Accordingly, the current petition for reconsideration
will be dismissed as successive.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Petition for removal was timely but denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 4We also deny the petition as one seeking removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy
rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136
Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant
removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if
removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1,
2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that
reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner
ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
Contrary to the WCJ, we found the Petition for Removal timely. However, based upon the WCJ's
analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice
or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an
adequate remedy.