What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as untimely.p. 4
Petition for Reconsideration filed July 6, 2026, challenging the February 9, 2026 Opinion and Order Dismissing Reconsideration; petition dismissed as untimely.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold February 9, 2026.
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 for reconsideration was filed 147 days after the prior decision was served, exceeding the 25-day limit for filing, making it untimely and depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to hear it.
From the decision · page 2Turning now to the merits of the Petition, as the Appeals Board previously explained in their February 9, 2026 Opinion, 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), former 10507(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, former 10508.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed (i.e., received) by the Appeals Board within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10940(a), former 10845(a); 10615(a), former 10392(a).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to act upon or consider an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal. Comp. Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The petition for reconsideration was received 147 days after the prior decision was served, exceeding the 25-day filing limit.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition untimely and deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to hear it.
From the decision · page 2Turning now to the merits of the Petition, as the Appeals Board previously explained in their February 9, 2026 Opinion, 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), former 10507(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, former 10508.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed (i.e., received) by the Appeals Board within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10940(a), former 10845(a); 10615(a), former 10392(a).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to act upon or consider an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal. Comp. Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5903; California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 10605(a)(1), 10940(a), 10615(a)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of service of the final decision to be timely; proof of mailing within the period is insufficient, the petition must be received within the time allowed.
The petition was received 147 days after the prior decision was served, thus untimely and not subject to consideration by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 2Turning now to the merits of the Petition, as the Appeals Board previously explained in their February 9, 2026 Opinion, 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), former 10507(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, former 10508.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed (i.e., received) by the Appeals Board within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10940(a), former 10845(a); 10615(a), former 10392(a).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to act upon or consider an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal. Comp. Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v.
Labor Code section 5909(a)
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied if the Appeals Board does not act within 60 days of filing.
The decision was issued on the 60th day after filing, thus timely acting on the petition as required.
From the decision · page 2During the period from July 1, 2026 to July 13, 2026, Labor Code section 5909(a) 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(a).) Here, the Petition for Reconsideration was filed on July 6, 2026, and 60 days from the date of filing is September 4, 2026. This decision is issued by or on September 4, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
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.