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 Appeals Board's decision rescinding the WCJ's order and returning the matter for further proceedings was not a final decision, so the petitions for reconsideration were properly dismissed.
From the decision · page 5II. 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. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id., at 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The petitions for reconsideration were filed with the DWC district office, not the Appeals Board, which precluded timely review.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural error prevented the Appeals Board from timely reviewing the petitions, leading to dismissal.
From the decision · page 2I. We would first note that by regulation "Petitions for reconsideration of decisions after reconsideration of the Appeals Board shall be filed with the office of the Appeals Board." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a).) Defendants Mattes and BAMA did not file their petitions with the Appeals Board, but instead filed the petitions with the DWC district office, which in effect, precluded the Appeals Board from reviewing the petitions in a timely manner. The Appeals Board would politely admonish Mattes and BAMA that any such future petitions must be filed directly with the Appeals Board. 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.)1 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.
The Appeals Board's decision rescinded the WCJ's order and returned the matter for further proceedings, which is not a final decision.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because the decision was not final, the petitions for reconsideration were not properly taken and thus dismissed.
From the decision · page 5II. 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. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id., at 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p.
The case file containing the petitions was not transmitted to the Appeals Board within 60 days due to a district office error, triggering equitable tolling.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This administrative error delayed the Appeals Board's action but did not affect the dismissal outcome.
From the decision · page 5of filing is Tuesday June 25, 2024. According to EAMS, the case file was not transmitted to the Appeals Board until August 1, 2024. Accordingly, the Appeals Board failed to act on the petition within 60 days due to a failure by the District Office and not through any fault of the parties.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a 'final' order, decision, or award.
The Appeals Board's decision rescinding the WCJ's order and returning the matter for further proceedings was not a final decision, so the petitions for reconsideration were dismissed.
From the decision · page 5II. 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. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id., at 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p.
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.