What the panel ordered
Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Order is DENIED.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold April 5, 2022.
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 Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely, as timeliness depends on receipt by the district office, not mailing date, and the Board lacks authority to consider untimely petitions.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a December 20, 2021 decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) because the decision was untimely.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The petition for reconsideration was not timely received by the district office.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Timeliness depends on receipt by the district office, and the Board has no authority to consider untimely petitions.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a December 20, 2021 decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) because the decision was untimely.
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
A petition for reconsideration must be timely received by the district office to be considered by the Appeals Board.
The Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was not received timely by the district office.
From the decision · page 1Whether a petition is timely depends on when the petition was received by the district office rather than when the petition is mailed. 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. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].)
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.