What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Disqualification are dismissed as untimely and insufficient.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Disqualification regarding the December 5, 2023 First Amended Findings and Award issued by the WCJ.
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 disqualification did not set forth facts under penalty of perjury sufficient to establish disqualification and was untimely under WCAB Rule 10960.
From the decision · page 3WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Moreover, the petition is untimely pursuant to WCAB Rule 10960. Accordingly, the request for disqualification is also dismissed.
The Petition for Reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline and is therefore untimely; the Appeals Board has no authority to consider an untimely petition.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ issued the First Amended Findings and Award on December 5, 2023. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, January 2, 2024 to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 12, 2024 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Petition for Reconsideration was filed on January 12, 2024, after the January 2, 2024 deadline.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition untimely and deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ issued the First Amended Findings and Award on December 5, 2023. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, January 2, 2024 to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 12, 2024 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The petition for disqualification did not set forth facts under penalty of perjury sufficient to establish disqualification and was untimely.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition for disqualification both procedurally and substantively insufficient, requiring dismissal.
From the decision · page 3WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Moreover, the petition is untimely pursuant to WCAB Rule 10960. Accordingly, the request for disqualification is also dismissed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10605(a)(1), 10600, 10940(a), 10615(b)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of a final decision served by mail upon an address in California; the time limit is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by proof of mailing.
Applied to dismiss the untimely Petition for Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).)
Lab. Code § 5311; Code Civ. Proc. § 641; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960
A petition for disqualification must be supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating facts establishing grounds for disqualification and must be filed within 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds are known.
Applied to dismiss the insufficient and untimely Petition for Disqualification.
From the decision · page 2Under WCAB Rule 10960, proceedings to disqualify a WCJ "shall be initiated by the filing of a petition for disqualification supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating in detail facts establishing one or more of the grounds for disqualification...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10452, now § 10960 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020), italics added.) It has long been recognized that "[t]he allegations in a statement charging bias and prejudice of a judge must set forth specifically the facts on which the charge is predicated," that "[a] statement containing nothing but conclusions and setting forth no facts constituting a ground for disqualification may be ignored," and that "[w]here no facts are set forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined." (Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395, 399, italics added.)
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.