What the panel ordered
The WCAB panel dismissed all petitions for reconsideration as successive and/or untimely and admonished the applicant regarding potential vexatious litigant proceedings.
Applicant filed multiple petitions for reconsideration of prior WCAB orders and the WCJ's Findings and Order; the WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation to deny reconsideration; the WCAB panel considered the petitions and the WCJ's report.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 7, 2025, November 12, 2024.
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 petitions for reconsideration were dismissed because they were successive and/or untimely, which is jurisdictionally barred under the Labor Code and relevant case law.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the "Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Disqualification" (Order) issued on November 7, 2025, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant further seeks reconsideration, in essence, of the entirety of the proceedings in this matter, which we have interpreted as seeking reconsideration of the "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration" (Order) issued on November 12, 2024, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, wherein we affirmed the WCJ's denial of applicant's petition to set aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release that issued in this matter. Applicant also filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated April 8, 2024, which could also be construed as seeking reconsideration of the July 5, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O)..
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The petitions for reconsideration were successive and/or untimely.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Successive and untimely petitions are jurisdictionally barred and must be dismissed.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the "Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Disqualification" (Order) issued on November 7, 2025, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant further seeks reconsideration, in essence, of the entirety of the proceedings in this matter, which we have interpreted as seeking reconsideration of the "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration" (Order) issued on November 12, 2024, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, wherein we affirmed the WCJ's denial of applicant's petition to set aside the Order Approving Compromise and Release that issued in this matter. Applicant also filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated April 8, 2024, which could also be construed as seeking reconsideration of the July 5, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O)..
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Appeals Board timely acted on the petitions within the 60-day period as required by Labor Code section 5909.
From the decision · page 2I. Former Labor Code section 59091 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
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.