What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Finding of Fact and Order issued on March 9, 2026 by the PWCJ, which dismissed case ADJ18890787 with prejudice based on res judicata.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 11, 2025, April 1, 2025.
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 agreed with the WCJ that the second case ADJ18890787 is an attempt to relitigate issues decided with finality in ADJ10622598 and is precluded by res judicata, warranting dismissal with prejudice due to no new evidence supporting the claim.
From the decision · page 7We agree with the WCJ that the second case against Asset Protection is an attempt by applicant to relitigate the issues decided against him with finality in case number ADJ10622598 and as such, the case is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore, we agree that this case should be dismissed with prejudice as there is no new evidence in the record to support the contention that applicant should be allowed to proceed against defendants.
The Appeals Board denied the request to vacate the vexatious litigant order because the applicant failed to timely appeal the order within the prescribed time limits, which is jurisdictional and precludes consideration of the issue.
From the decision · page 8Here, the failure of applicant to timely appeal the order finding him to be a vexatious litigant within the stated time limits precludes the Appeals Board from considering the issue of the PWCJ's findings declaring him a vexatious litigant.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant filed a second case ADJ18890787 against Asset Protection after a final decision in ADJ10622598.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact shows the second case is an attempt to relitigate issues already decided with finality, supporting res judicata dismissal.
From the decision · page 7We agree with the WCJ that the second case against Asset Protection is an attempt by applicant to relitigate the issues decided against him with finality in case number ADJ10622598 and as such, the case is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore, we agree that this case should be dismissed with prejudice as there is no new evidence in the record to support the contention that applicant should be allowed to proceed against defendants.
The prior case ADJ10622598 resulted in a final decision on November 16, 2022, with findings that applicant did not sustain industrial injuries.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This final decision bars relitigation of the same issues in the second case under res judicata.
From the decision · page 3On November 16, 2022, Findings and Orders (F&O) issued in ADJ10622598 that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his face (scarring), kidney disease, depression, uncontrolled hypertension, hypertensive heart disease, abnormal uric acid, and gout and ordered applicant to take nothing on his claims. Applicant did not challenge the F&O.
Applicant did not appeal the November 16, 2022 decision, which became final in December 2022.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The finality of the prior decision supports dismissal of the second case as barred by res judicata.
From the decision · page 4None of the QMEs who examined him found industrially related injuries. (Dr. Reiss, QME in psychiatry, Dr. Kramer, QME in Internal Medicine, Dr. Milling, QME in Orthopedics). The trial judge determined that the applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his face, psyche, kidneys, heart, hypertension, gout, or any other body part. The trial judge found that the employer did not violate Labor Code section 132(a), and that there was no serious and willful misconduct by the employer. the applicant did not appeal from the November 16, 2022, decision, and the decision became final in December 2022.
Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant on August 2, 2024, and did not timely appeal this order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to timely appeal the vexatious litigant order precludes reconsideration of that issue.
From the decision · page 8Here, the failure of applicant to timely appeal the order finding him to be a vexatious litigant within the stated time limits precludes the Appeals Board from considering the issue of the PWCJ's findings declaring him a vexatious litigant.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hudson v. Foster (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 640; Branson v. Sun Diamond Growers of California, 24 Cal.App.4th 327 (1994); Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (1990)
Res judicata bars claims or issues previously decided with finality between the same parties.
The Appeals Board applied res judicata to bar relitigation of issues decided in case ADJ10622598 against the same parties.
From the decision · page 7Res judicata refers to both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. "Claim preclusion, the `primary aspect' of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. Issue preclusion, the `secondary aspect' historically called collateral estoppel, describes the bar on relitigating issues that were argued and decided in the first suit." (Hudson v. Foster (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 640, fn. 10.) Issue preclusion, applies to bar a party from relitigating an issue if the following requirements are met: (1) "the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding"; (2) "this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding"; (3) "it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding"; (4) "the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits"; and (5) "the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding." Branson v.
Labor Code sections 5900, 5903, 10605; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within the prescribed time limits or it will not be considered by the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board applied the time limits to deny the request to vacate the vexatious litigant order due to untimely appeal.
From the decision · page 8Here, the failure of applicant to timely appeal the order finding him to be a vexatious litigant within the stated time limits precludes the Appeals Board from considering the issue of the PWCJ's findings declaring him a vexatious litigant.
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.