What the panel ordered
The WCAB vacated its prior Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration issued on September 29, 2022, and dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's June 21, 2022 Findings and Order for untimeliness.
Petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's June 21, 2022 Findings and Order was filed by lien claimant Beverly Hills Pharmacy and dismissed for untimeliness by the WCAB panel on July 19, 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.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because Beverly Hills Pharmacy failed to timely file it within the jurisdictional time limit, depriving the Appeals Board of authority to consider it.
From the decision · page 1On May 26, 2023, we issued our "Opinion and Notice of Intention to Dismiss" (Opinion), wherein we allowed lien claimant Beverly Hills Pharmacy 15 days to file proof that it had timely filed its petition for reconsideration of a F&O issued on June 21, 2022 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In our Opinion, we gave notice to Beverly Hills Pharmacy that, unless it submitted proof of timely filing within the allotted 15 days, its petition for reconsideration would be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Beverly Hills Pharmacy failed to prove that its petition for reconsideration was timely filed within the 15-day deadline.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider the petition, leading to its dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Fifteen days after May 26, 2023 was June 10, 2023. However, June 10, 2023 was a Saturday, so Monday, June 12, 2023 was the last business day that Beverly Hills Pharmacy could file its response to our Opinion. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) Beverly Hills Pharmacy did not submit a timely response to our Opinion. As a result, Beverly Hills Pharmacy failed to prove that its petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's June 21, 2022 F&O was timely filed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068
The time limit for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional and deprives the Appeals Board of authority to consider an untimely petition.
The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not timely filed.
From the decision · page 1This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (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. (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Beverly Hills Pharmacy did not submit a timely response to the Opinion and Notice of Intention to Dismiss.
From the decision · page 1Fifteen days after May 26, 2023 was June 10, 2023. However, June 10, 2023 was a Saturday, so Monday, June 12, 2023 was the last business day that Beverly Hills Pharmacy could file its response to our Opinion. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) Beverly Hills Pharmacy did not submit a timely response to our Opinion. As a result, Beverly Hills Pharmacy failed to prove that its petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's June 21, 2022 F&O was timely filed.
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.