What the panel ordered
Vacated prior grant of reconsideration and dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration for lack of a final order, decision, or award in the record.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant in pro per on September 22, 2022, seeking reimbursement for self-incurred medical bills; record lacked a final order, decision, or award by a WCJ, leading to dismissal of the petition.
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 dismissed because it was not filed in response to a final order, decision, or award, as required by Labor Code section 5900(a) and related case law.
From the decision · page 1Applicant in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration on September 22, 2022. In the Petition, it appears that applicant seeks reimbursement for the cost of self-incurred medical bills as a result of his industrial injuries.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record did not contain a final order, decision, or award by a WCJ.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without a final order, the Appeals Board cannot consider a petition for reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a).
From the decision · page 2Here, the record in FileNet in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) only contains applicant's Petition, documents that he attached to the Petition, and our Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration. It appears that applicant seeks relief from us in the first instance. However, a petition for reconsideration to the Appeals Board may only be filed in response to a final order, decision, or award. Here, the record does not contain a final order, decision, or award, and the record does not contain evidence to assist in our review. Thus, applicant's Petition must be dismissed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5900(a)
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
The petition was dismissed because the record did not contain a final order, decision, or award.
From the decision · page 1Labor Code section 5900(a) states: (a) Any person aggrieved directly or indirectly by any final order, decision, or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge under any provision contained in this division, may petition the appeals board for reconsideration in respect to any matters determined or covered by the final order, decision, or award, and specified in the petition for reconsideration. The petition shall be made only within the time and in the manner specified in this chapter.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence.
The record did not contain evidence to assist in review, leading to dismissal of the petition.
From the decision · page 2Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, 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 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.)
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.