What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as untimely and for failure to state grounds with specificity.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings & Award issued by the WCJ on December 9, 2022.
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 was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision and failed to state grounds with specificity or attach newly discovered evidence as required.
From the decision · page 4For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DISMISSED.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration was filed on January 24, 2024, more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision on December 9, 2022.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition untimely and deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 2Here, the petition in this matter was filed on January 24, 2024. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's decision on December 9, 2022, and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.
Petition failed to sufficiently identify and attach additional records claimed as newly discovered evidence, nor provided a full and accurate statement of reasons for late discovery.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Even if timely, the petition would be subject to dismissal for failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements.
From the decision · page 3Where reconsideration is sought on the ground of newly discovered evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been produced before submission of the case or on the ground that the decision had been procured by fraud, the petition must contain an offer of proof, specific and detailed, providing:... (c) A description of any documentary evidence to be offered. (d) The effect that the evidence will have on the record and on the prior decision; and (e) As to newly discovered evidence, a full and accurate statement of the reasons why the testimony or exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered or produced before submission of the case. (emphasis added) (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 10974.) Here, applicant failed to sufficiently identify and attach the additional records that he contends are "newly discovered" nor has applicant provided a full and accurate statement of the reasons why the testimony could not have reasonably been discovered before submission of the case. The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore, even if it was timely, it is subject to dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10605(a)(1), 10600, 10940(a), 10615(b)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of service of a final decision by mail upon an address in California; proof of mailing is insufficient, and the petition must be received by the WCAB within the time allowed.
The petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision and was therefore untimely.
From the decision · page 1As a preliminary matter, applicant's Petition is untimely. 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. (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
Lab. Code, § 5902; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10945, 10972, 10974
A petition for reconsideration must set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which reconsideration is sought, be verified, and contain a general statement of evidence relied upon.
The petition failed to state grounds with specificity or attach newly discovered evidence as required.
From the decision · page 2The petition for reconsideration shall set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the petitioner considers the final order, decision or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the appeals board. The petition shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record and shall contain a general statement of any evidence or other matters upon which the applicant relies in support thereof. (emphasis added) (Lab. Code, § 5902.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Petition was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision, making it untimely.
From the decision · page 2Here, the petition in this matter was filed on January 24, 2024. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's decision on December 9, 2022, and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.
Petition failed to sufficiently identify and attach additional records claimed as newly discovered evidence, nor provided a full and accurate statement of reasons for late discovery.
From the decision · page 3Where reconsideration is sought on the ground of newly discovered evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been produced before submission of the case or on the ground that the decision had been procured by fraud, the petition must contain an offer of proof, specific and detailed, providing:... (c) A description of any documentary evidence to be offered. (d) The effect that the evidence will have on the record and on the prior decision; and (e) As to newly discovered evidence, a full and accurate statement of the reasons why the testimony or exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered or produced before submission of the case. (emphasis added) (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 10974.) Here, applicant failed to sufficiently identify and attach the additional records that he contends are "newly discovered" nor has applicant provided a full and accurate statement of the reasons why the testimony could not have reasonably been discovered before submission of the case. The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore, even if it was timely, it is subject to dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for reconsideration.
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.