What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as it sought review of a non-final order.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant seeking review of the February 21, 2025 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold February 21, 2025.
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 was dismissed because it sought review of a non-final order, which is not permitted under the Labor Code and case law.
From the decision · page 3Here, our February 21, 2015 order rescinding the dismissal of the lien does not determine any substantive right or liability, nor does it determine a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits.2 Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration because it seeks review of a non-final order.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The February 21, 2025 order rescinding the dismissal of the lien was not a final order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because it did not determine any substantive right or liability or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits, the petition seeking review of this order was dismissed.
From the decision · page 3Here, our February 21, 2015 order rescinding the dismissal of the lien does not determine any substantive right or liability, nor does it determine a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits.2 Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration because it seeks review of a non-final order.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration must be filed with the Appeals Board and acted upon within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.
The petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission on March 17, 2025, with the decision issued on May 14, 2025.
From the decision · page 2Under Labor Code section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
The February 21, 2025 order rescinding the dismissal of the lien was not a final order as it did not determine substantive rights or a threshold issue.
From the decision · page 3Here, our February 21, 2015 order rescinding the dismissal of the lien does not determine any substantive right or liability, nor does it determine a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits.2 Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration because it seeks review of a non-final order.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Failure to provide notice of transmission to the parties as required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1).
From the decision · page 2Here, a notice of transmission was served by the district office on March 13, 2025, but the case was actually transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 17, 2025. Thus, we conclude that the parties were not provided with the notice of transmission required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1). While this failure to provide notice does not alter the time for the Appeals Board to
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.