ADJ9891503 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; Order Dismissing Lien rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and decision.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimant Precise Interpreting was considered by the Appeals Board, which granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's Order Dismissing Lien, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision.

Read the official decision →

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and that the time to act was tolled due to procedural error, thus granting reconsideration and rescinding the dismissal order.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of lien claimant Precise Interpreting's Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised in the petition and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5909

The Board considered the statutory time limit for acting on petitions for reconsideration and the tolling of that time due to procedural error.

From the decision · page 1Labor Code section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1108.)

Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104

The Board applied the Shipley case to toll the time to act on the petition due to the file being misplaced through no fault of the parties.

From the decision · page 1Labor Code section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1108.)

ADJ9891503 · May 27, 2021

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page