Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Lab. Code sec. 5803
The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend orders for good cause under Labor Code section 5803.
The Board found good cause to vacate the dismissal order due to incomplete QME process and failure of both parties to comply with documentation requests.
From the decision · page 4II.
Turning now to the merits of the Petition, pursuant to section 5803, "[t]he appeals board
has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the
provisions of [Division 4]" and "[a]t any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is
given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision,
or award, good cause appearing therefor." (Lab. Code, § 5803.)
Here, an Order of Dismissal of case without prejudice was issued by the WCJ on April 25,
2025. Thereafter, upon receipt of applicant's petition, and completion of a Trial on the issue of
rescission, the Order of Dismissal was rescinded, via an April 15, 2025 F&O. Defendant contends
that there was no good cause for the rescission because there was no good cause for applicant's
inaction and the reporting of PQME, Dr.
Cal. Lab. Code sec. 5909
A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board under Labor Code section 5909.
The Board timely acted on the petition for reconsideration filed by defendant within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 3Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 24, 2025,
and 60 days from the date of transmission is August 23, 2025, which is a Saturday. The next
business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, August 25, 2025. (See Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)2 This decision was issued by or on August 25, 2025, so that we
have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, 10109
Claims administrators must fully and fairly gather pertinent information and not restrict investigations to objections or defenses, per Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, 10109.
The Board emphasized the defendant's duty to comply with QME requests for testing and records to complete the medical-legal analysis.
Bland v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324; Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1196
Procedural dismissals are disfavored; public policy favors resolution on the merits, per case law including Bland and Fox.
The Board cited public policy favoring disposition on the merits to support vacating the dismissal order.
From the decision · page 6But since Dr. Segil requires a great deal of testing and documentation before
finalizing his opinion, it is in the best interests of the Applicant, and it is
consistent with the Defendant's affirmative duty under sec. 10109 that the QME
report be finished and that the merits of the case dictate the case's conclusion.
(Report, p. 4.)
We agree with the WCJ's above statements. It is also well established that procedural
dismissals are disfavored and there is a strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Bland v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d
324 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 513]; Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1196,
1205 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 149].)
Taking the above into consideration, we believe there was good cause to rescind the April
25, 2023 Order of Dismissal. Accordingly, defendant's Petition is denied.