What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration is dismissed as untimely.
Applicant, while still represented, filed a petition for reconsideration in pro per. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report.
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 after the jurisdictional deadline, so the Appeals Board has no authority to consider it.
From the decision · page 3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (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 Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.