WCAB petition for reconsideration deadline

What the Appeals Board said about this deadline

Newest released decisions whose stated standard names § 5903, each with the passage it turned on and the official PDF. Litigated tail, not a count of how often the deadline is missed.

• ADJ12941269 · 2026-10-09 · Oakland District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.9(Lab. Code, § 4660.1(a) and (b), emphasis added.) The use and incorporation of the AMA Guides is acknowledged in the PDRS itself, with exception for claims of psychiatric impairment. (PDRS, p. 1-2; 1-12.) The use of the AMA Guides, however, is rebuttable. (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 822 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].) Because the AMA Guides’ incorporation into the PDRS is rebuttable, the first step in the assessment of disability, is to determine the impairment for the injured body part(s) under the AMA Guides. This allows a physician to determine if rebuttal of a strict rating AMA Guide impairment is necessary. If the physician finds the straight AMA Guides impairment to be lacking: [t]he physician should be free to acknowledge his or her reliance on standard texts or recent research data as a basis for his or her medical conclusions, and the WCJ

  The Board requires substantial expert medical evidence to support work restrictions and impairment ratings, and rejects lay opinion as insufficient.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ10648161 · 2026-10-05 · Goleta District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Maranian, supra, at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’…”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders”].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, although applicant contends that he seeks reconsideration of a findings and order, the PWCJ did not issue a decision on the merits. Thus, it appears that applicant is, in essence, seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the PWCJ on June 22, 2026, wherein the PWCJ took the matter off calendar. The PWCJ’s decision solely to take a hearing off calendar resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right

  The PWCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural decision and not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ19581832 · 2026-10-05 · San Francisco District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.3II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that either “determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a “threshold” issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]). Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ ”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate

  The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ3117080 · 2026-09-28 · Sacramento District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report, the Report was served on July 30, 2026 and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 30, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on July 30, 2026. II. We first consider applicant’s Petition. 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, and 30 days when one of the parties is out of state. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) 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.

  Applicant's petition was filed after the deadline, thus untimely and dismissed.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12944113 · 2026-09-28 · Bakersfield District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.11Thus, “an employee may challenge the presumptive scheduled percentage of permanent disability prescribed to an injury by showing a factual error in the calculation of a factor in the rating formula or application of the formula, the omission of medical complications aggravating the employee’s disability in preparation of the rating schedule, or by demonstrating that due to industrial injury the employee is not amenable to rehabilitation and therefore has suffered a greater loss of future earning capacity than reflected in the scheduled rating.’ (Ogilvie, supra, at p. 1277.) Moreover, it is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza, supra; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) “The term ‘substantial evidence’ means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues.

  The Appeals Board reviewed the record and found further development of the medical-legal record necessary to support a just decision.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ16611684 · 2026-09-21 · Santa Ana District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.3Hagler (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 Amended Findings and Award on May 6, 2026. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, June 1, 2026 to seek reconsideration. EAMS reflects that applicant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on June 26, 2026. Therefore, it was untimely filed and will be dismissed. If we were not dismissing the petition as untimely, we would deny it on the merits for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Amended Report.

  The petition was filed after the deadline and was dismissed as untimely.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ19686963 · 2026-09-21 · Redding District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.11Here, substantial evidence is required as decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to

  The Board must ensure decisions are supported by substantial evidence and further develop the record if evidence is insufficient.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ19086907 · 2026-09-14 · Marina Del Rey District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.5DISCUSSION We preliminarily address the issue raised by the WCJ as to the timeliness of defendant’s Petition. We observe that there are twenty (20) days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a “final” decision, plus five (5) calendar days if a party has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) 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, § 10600.) In addition, if the party to be served is outside of California, but within the United States, the time in which to act is extended ten (10) calendar days from the date of service, or thirty (30) days total. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(2).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v.

  The Appeals Board found defendant's petition timely because service was properly effectuated on June 12, 2026, and the petition was filed June 30, 2026, within the allowed time.

  Official decision · page 5 →