What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as untimely.
Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of an Arbitrator's decision dated November 23, 2020; the petition was filed late.
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 reconsideration was not filed within the 25-day statutory period following service of the Arbitrator's decision, and the time limit is jurisdictional.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the Arbitrator issued the decision on November 23, 2020, serving it by mail on applicant and applicant's counsel, Barkhordarian Law Firm. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, December 18, 2020 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is dated December 21, 2020. A proof of service shows that the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on December 21, 2020 and it was filed in EAMS on January 5, 2021. Accordingly, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and will be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Arbitrator's decision was served by mail on November 23, 2020; the deadline to file for reconsideration was December 18, 2020.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Establishes the statutory deadline for timely filing.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the Arbitrator issued the decision on November 23, 2020, serving it by mail on applicant and applicant's counsel, Barkhordarian Law Firm. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, December 18, 2020 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is dated December 21, 2020. A proof of service shows that the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on December 21, 2020 and it was filed in EAMS on January 5, 2021. Accordingly, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and will be dismissed.
Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was mailed December 21, 2020 and filed January 5, 2021, after the deadline.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Shows the petition was untimely, depriving the Board of jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the Arbitrator issued the decision on November 23, 2020, serving it by mail on applicant and applicant's counsel, Barkhordarian Law Firm. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, December 18, 2020 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is dated December 21, 2020. A proof of service shows that the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on December 21, 2020 and it was filed in EAMS on January 5, 2021. Accordingly, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and will be 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); Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076; Shipley v. WCAB (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108
A petition for reconsideration must be filed with the WCAB within 25 days of service of a final decision by mail to a California address; proof of mailing is insufficient, and the time limit is jurisdictional.
The petition was not filed within the statutory period, so the Board has no authority to consider it.
From the decision · page 2Nevertheless, while our time to act was tolled, applicant's petition was untimely filed and therefore subject to dismissal. There 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, former § 10507(a)(1), now § 10605(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10508, now § 10600 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10845(a), now § 10940(a); former § 10392(a), now § 10615(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Proof of service showed the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed December 21, 2020 and filed in EAMS January 5, 2021, after the 25-day deadline from the November 23, 2020 decision.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the Arbitrator issued the decision on November 23, 2020, serving it by mail on applicant and applicant's counsel, Barkhordarian Law Firm. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, December 18, 2020 to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is dated December 21, 2020. A proof of service shows that the Petition for Reconsideration was mailed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on December 21, 2020 and it was filed in EAMS on January 5, 2021. Accordingly, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and will be dismissed.
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.