What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as untimely and not verified, with denial on merits if timely.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant was reviewed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel and found untimely under amended Labor Code section 5909, leading to dismissal.
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 30 days after service of the Findings of Fact and Award and was not verified as required, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 3The Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) was served on December 31, 2024, and included a recipient in Texas. The Petition in this matter was filed on March 13, 2025. This date was more than 30 days after the service of the F&A and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.2
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration was filed on March 13, 2025, more than 30 days after service of the Findings of Fact and Award on December 31, 2024, including a recipient in Texas.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This filing date exceeded the 30-day filing deadline, making the petition untimely and subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 3The Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) was served on December 31, 2024, and included a recipient in Texas. The Petition in this matter was filed on March 13, 2025. This date was more than 30 days after the service of the F&A and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.2
The Petition was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of verification is a procedural defect that justifies dismissal unless cured or excused, supporting dismissal here.
From the decision · page 32 Additionally, we observe that the Petition is not verified. Labor Code section 5902 requires that a petition for reconsideration be verified. (Lab. Code, § 5902; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510(d).) In Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1425 (Significant Panel Decision), it was held that where a petition for reconsideration is not verified as required by section 5902, the petition may be dismissed if the petitioner has been given notice of the defect (either by the WCJ's report or by the respondent's answer) unless, within a reasonable time, the petitioner either: (1) cures the defect by filing a verification; or (2) files an explanation that establishes a compelling reason for the lack of verification and the record establishes that the respondents are not prejudiced by the lack of verification.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Provided two medical reports dated July 16, 2020 and August 8, 2024, which were relied upon by the WCJ and Appeals Board as substantial medical evidence.
The medical reports were the only medical evidence relied upon in the case and supported the WCJ's findings, which the Appeals Board would not disturb even if the petition were timely.
From the decision · page 3However, even if the petition had been timely, we would have denied it on the merits based on the analysis in the WCJ's report. We observe that the only medical reports admitted into evidence are the two reports from the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in psychiatry Dr. Brian Jacks dated July 16, 2020 (Ex. J2) and August 8, 2024 (Ex. J1). The Declaration of Readiness (DOR) was filed by applicant's attorney on September 17, 2024, stating that the case was ready for resolution and that applicant was only relying on the reports of Dr. Jacks. We would not disturb the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Jacks' reports as substantial medical evidence.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board; the petition here was untimely under this standard.
From the decision · page 1I. Former Labor Code section 5909 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, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
Labor Code section 5902
Labor Code section 5902
Petition for reconsideration must be verified; failure to verify is grounds for dismissal unless cured or excused.
From the decision · page 32 Additionally, we observe that the Petition is not verified. Labor Code section 5902 requires that a petition for reconsideration be verified. (Lab. Code, § 5902; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510(d).) In Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1425 (Significant Panel Decision), it was held that where a petition for reconsideration is not verified as required by section 5902, the petition may be dismissed if the petitioner has been given notice of the defect (either by the WCJ's report or by the respondent's answer) unless, within a reasonable time, the petitioner either: (1) cures the defect by filing a verification; or (2) files an explanation that establishes a compelling reason for the lack of verification and the record establishes that the respondents are not prejudiced by the lack of verification.
WCAB Rule 10600
WCAB Rule 10600
Extension of filing deadlines to next business day if deadline falls on weekend or holiday.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 19, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, May 18, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, May 19, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)1 This decision is issued by or on Monday, May 19, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
WCAB Rule 10617
WCAB Rule 10617
Consideration of attempts to file may allow a petition to be timely; here no indication of attempts was found in EAMS.
From the decision · page 3In her Petition, applicant states that she attempted to file an appeal letter on January 22 and February 11, 2025, but both were rejected. From our review of the matter in EAMS, there is no indication of either of these attempts to file an appeal. Under WCAB Rule 10617, her attempts to file may have allowed her Petition to be timely. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10617.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Petition was filed more than 30 days after service of Findings of Fact and Award and was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902.
From the decision · page 3The Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) was served on December 31, 2024, and included a recipient in Texas. The Petition in this matter was filed on March 13, 2025. This date was more than 30 days after the service of the F&A and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.2
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.