Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
WCAB Rule 10615
WCAB Rule 10615 deems documents filed after 5:00 PM on a court day as filed the next court day.
The Petition to Reopen filed after 5:00 PM on February 1, 2023, was deemed filed on February 2, 2023, making it untimely.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ's Report observes that pursuant to Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
(WCAB) Rule 10615, a document is deemed received the same day it is filed so long as it is filed
before 5:00 PM on a court day. However, if the document is filed after 5:00 PM, the document
shall be deemed filed as of the next court day. Here, the Petition to Reopen was filed after 5:00
PM on the last day to timely file, and was thus deemed filed the next day, which was one day late.
(Report, at pp. 3-4.) The WCJ further notes that applicant failed to object to the WCJ's October
12, 2023 NIT to Dismiss the Petition to Reopen. (Report, at pp. 2-3.)
Labor Code section 5410
Labor Code section 5410 confers continuing jurisdiction over a prior award when a timely petition is filed within five years of the date of injury.
The Board's continuing jurisdiction depends on timely filing of a petition alleging new and further disability within five years.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION
Labor Code1 section 5410 confers on the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
continuing jurisdiction over a prior award when a timely petition is filed within five years of the
date of injury. The section provides:
Bland v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324
Pleadings in workers' compensation cases are to be liberally construed in favor of the employee to accomplish substantial justice.
The Board liberally permits amendment to applications and does not dismiss incomplete applications to avoid loss of compensation.
From the decision · page 7The board has appropriately enforced the legislative mandate regarding
informality of pleading, as the following instances exemplify: by prohibiting
demurrers to workmen's compensation claims, by permitting any party in
interest to file an application, by not dismissing incomplete applications but
rather attempting to obtain the necessary information on its own motion, by
treating a new application for benefits filed more than five years after the date
of injury as a valid petition to reopen because an earlier application relating to
the same injury had been improperly dismissed, by interpreting a reasonably
detailed letter from an injured workman as an application, by waiving the
requirement of separate applications for separate injuries in the interests of
justice, and by liberally permitting amendment to applications to conform to
proof.
Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 590
A petition to reopen need not be specific as to the basis for reopening if it generally alleges a change in condition.
The Board retains authority to hear and evaluate petitions to reopen even if they fail to specify facts relied upon.
From the decision · page 7Similarly, in Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 590 [40
Cal.Comp.Cases 784], the Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's determination that a
petition to reopen was insufficiently specific as to the basis for reopening. Applicant's Petition to
Beaida v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 204
A letter from a treating physician indicating that the current award does not reflect overall disability is sufficient to invoke continuing jurisdiction.
The Board may consider informal pleadings and letters as sufficient to invoke jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 8Moreover, in Beaida v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 204 [33
Cal.Comp.Cases], the Court of Appeal determined that a letter from applicant's treating physician
discussing the physician's opinion that applicant's current award did not reflect his overall
disability was a sufficient basis to invoke the Board's continuing jurisdiction under section 5410.
The Court in Beaida noted that the physician's letter "claimed pain and disability for which the
compensation provided by the original award now turned out to be inadequate," and that the public
policy required that the letter be construed as a pleading. (Id. at p. 210.)