What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; Petition for Disqualification deniedp. 12
Applicant seeks reconsideration of WCJ's September 6, 2024 Finding, Order Dismissing Petition to Reopen; also seeks disqualification of WCJ
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold June 11, 2024, May 25, 2023.
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.
Petition to reopen filed more than five years after date of injury; five-year limitations period is jurisdictional
From the decision · page 9In summary, we agree with the WCJ that insofar as applicant’s July 25, 2016 petition seeks to alter or amend the underlying Award issued on April 13, 2011, the petition is untimely. (Lab.
Petition failed to set forth facts under penalty of perjury sufficient to establish disqualification
From the decision · page 11Here, as discussed in the WCJ’s Report on Petition for Disqualification, the petition does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.
July 25, 2016 petition recharacterized as penalty petition; issue deferred by WCJ
From the decision · page 9We therefore conclude the petition should properly be considered a petition for penalties pursuant to section 5814. Because the WCJ has expressly deferred “all other issues … included the mileage and penalties,” the issue remains pending at this time, and the parties remain free to marshal evidence responsive to the issue.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition to reopen filed July 25, 2016, more than five years after April 13, 2011 Award
Favours Defendant prevailed
Five-year limitations period under Labor Code section 5804 is jurisdictional
From the decision · page 9In summary, we agree with the WCJ that insofar as applicant’s July 25, 2016 petition seeks to alter or amend the underlying Award issued on April 13, 2011, the petition is untimely. (Lab.
WCJ deferred all issues including penalties, mileage, and out-of-pocket expense reimbursement
Favours neutral
Penalty petition issue remains pending; Board declines to disturb F&O
From the decision · page 9We therefore conclude the petition should properly be considered a petition for penalties pursuant to section 5814. Because the WCJ has expressly deferred “all other issues … included the mileage and penalties,” the issue remains pending at this time, and the parties remain free to marshal evidence responsive to the issue.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5410, 5804
Five-year limitations period for reopening awards under Labor Code sections 5410 and 5804 is jurisdictional and not subject to waiver or estoppel
Petition to reopen filed more than five years after date of injury is untimely
From the decision · page 6450, 51 Cal.Comp.Cases 28]; Humphreys v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 54 Cal.Comp.Cases 4 [1988 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 2248] (writ den.).)
Lab. Code, § 5709; case law including Bland, Rubio, Martino
Pleadings in workers' compensation proceedings are informal and liberally construed; substance controls over form
July 25, 2016 petition recharacterized as section 5814 penalty petition despite nominal title
From the decision · page 7Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3th 148, 152-153 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 866].) Moreover, section 5709 states that “[n]o informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this division…” (Lab.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's July 25, 2016 petition alleges unreasonable delay in benefits and seeks judicial relief, properly considered a section 5814 penalty petition
From the decision · page 9Thus, and irrespective of the nominal title of the pleading, we are persuaded that applicant’s July 25, 2016 petition asserts unreasonable delay in the provision of various forms of benefits and seeks judicial relief in response to those delays.
Petition to reopen filed July 25, 2016, more than five years after April 13, 2011 Award
From the decision · page 9In summary, we agree with the WCJ that insofar as applicant’s July 25, 2016 petition seeks to alter or amend the underlying Award issued on April 13, 2011, the petition is untimely. (Lab.
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.