California Labor Code § 5908.5

Determinative passage · p.3First, section 4453(c)(4) is not written in the conjunctive, but rather in the alternative: "Where the employment is for less than 30 hours per week, or where for any reason the foregoing methods of arriving at the average weekly earnings cannot reasonably and fairly be applied..." (Lab. Code, § 4453(c)(4), italics added.) Therefore, the fact that respondent worked more than 30 hours per week is not dispositive of whether section 4453(c)(4) applies or does not apply. It may be that the Appeals Board did consider the second part of the first sentence of section 4453(c)(4) and still rejected its application; however, the Appeals Board failed to include any explanation of its consideration as required by section 5908.5. (Lab. Code, § 5908.5.)3

Requires detailed explanation of reasons for decision including consideration of evidence

Determinative passage · p.3Only the Appeals Board is statutorily authorized to issue a decision on a petition for reconsideration. (Lab. Code, § 112, 115, 5301, 5901, 5908.5, 5950; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10320, 10330.) The Appeals Board must conduct de novo review as to the merits of the petition and review the entire proceedings in the case. (Lab. Code, § 5906, 5908; see Lab. Code, § 5301, 5315, 5701, 5911.) Once a final decision by the Appeals Board on the merits of the petition issues, the parties may seek review under Labor Code section 59501, but appellate review is limited to review of the record certified by the Appeals Board. (Lab. Code, § 5901, 5951.)

The Appeals Board reviewed the entire record and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation before denying the petition.

Determinative passage · p.5III. Only the Appeals Board is statutorily authorized to issue a decision on a petition for reconsideration. (Lab. Code, § 112, 115, 5301, 5901, 5908.5, 5950; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10320, 10330.) The Appeals Board must conduct de novo review as to the merits of the petition and review the entire proceedings in the case. (Lab. Code, § 5906, 5908; see Lab. Code, § 5301, 5315, 5701, 5911.) Once a final decision by the Appeals Board on the merits of the petition issues, the parties may seek review under section 5950, but appellate review is limited to review of the record certified by the Appeals Board. (Lab. Code, § 5901, 5951.)

The Appeals Board reviewed the entire record and found the petition for reconsideration meritorious due to incomplete record and due process concerns.

Determinative passage · p.6IV. In addition, under our broad grant of authority, our jurisdiction over this matter is continuing. A grant of reconsideration has the effect of causing "the whole subject matter [to be] reopened for further consideration and determination" (Great Western Power Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Savercool) (1923) 191 Cal.724, 729 [10 I.A.C. 322]) and of "[throwing] the entire record open for review." (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (George) (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 201, 203 [19 Cal.Comp.Cases 98].) Thus, once reconsideration has been granted, the Appeals Board has the full power to make new and different findings on issues presented for

Grant of reconsideration reopens the entire record for further consideration and determination.

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendants G2 Secure Staff, LLC, New Hampshire Insurance Company, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services' Petition for Removal, applicant's Answer to the Petition, and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The Appeals Board reviewed the petition and denied it based on the WCJ's analysis.

Determinative passage · p.2Only the Appeals Board is statutorily authorized to issue a decision on a petition for reconsideration. (Lab. Code, § 112, 115, 5301, 5901, 5908.5, 5950; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10320, 10330.) The Appeals Board must conduct de novo review as to the merits of the petition and review the entire proceedings in the case. (Lab. Code, § 5906, 5908; see Lab. Code, § 5301, 5315, 5701, 5911.) Once a final decision by the Appeals Board on the merits of the petition issues, the parties may seek review under section 5950, but appellate review is limited to review of the record certified by the Appeals Board. (Lab. Code, § 5901, 5951.)

The Appeals Board applied these statutes and regulations to determine the timeliness and equitable tolling of the petition for reconsideration.

Determinative passage · p.11Section 5908.5 requires that the appeals board state the evidence relied upon and specify in detail the reasons for its decisions. (Lab. Code, § 5908.5.) The California Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he purpose of the requirement that evidence be stated and reasons detailed... is to assist the reviewing court to ascertain the principles relied upon by the lower tribunal, to help that tribunal avoid careless or arbitrary action, and to make the right of appeal or of seeking review more meaningful." (Evans, supra, 68 Cal.2d 753, 755.)

The WCJ's opinion did not adequately analyze the evidence or reasons, requiring the Appeals Board to remand for further proceedings.

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that defendant City of Los Angeles has sought reconsideration of the decision issued on June 4, 2024, by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) under Labor Code1 section 3201.7. The Petition for Reconsideration is attached as an exhibit to the Writ of Review filed with the Second Appellate District on October 28, 2024, and served on the Appeals Board at WCABWritUnit@dir.ca.gov.

The Appeals Board reviewed the procedural history and rules regarding filing and timeliness, accepted the petition despite email filing error, and granted reconsideration to ensure due process.