What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration is dismissed as untimely.
Applicant, while still represented, filed a petition for reconsideration in pro per. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report.
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 filed after the jurisdictional deadline, so the Appeals Board has no authority to consider it.
From the decision · page 3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's decision was issued on June 20, 2025, and the petition for reconsideration was not filed until August 25, 2025, well after the 25-day deadline.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This untimeliness deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider the petition.
From the decision · page 3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must be dismissed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10605(a)(1), 10940(a), 10615(b)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of a final decision served by mail within California; this time is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by proof of mailing alone.
The petition was filed after the 25-day period, so the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must be dismissed.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Proof of service and EAMS records showed the petition was filed after the deadline.
From the decision · page 3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must 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.