California Labor Code § 5900

Determinative passage · p.3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Maranian, supra, at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’…”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders”].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, although applicant contends that he seeks reconsideration of a findings and order, the PWCJ did not issue a decision on the merits. Thus, it appears that applicant is, in essence, seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the PWCJ on June 22, 2026, wherein the PWCJ took the matter off calendar. The PWCJ’s decision solely to take a hearing off calendar resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right

The PWCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural decision and not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

Determinative passage · p.3II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that either “determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a “threshold” issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]). Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ ”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate

The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

Determinative passage · p.4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report, the Report was served on July 30, 2026 and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 30, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on July 30, 2026. II. We first consider applicant’s Petition. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a “final” decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California, and 30 days when one of the parties is out of state. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.

Applicant's petition was filed after the deadline, thus untimely and dismissed.

Determinative passage · p.3Hagler (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].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Amended Findings and Award on May 6, 2026. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, June 1, 2026 to seek reconsideration. EAMS reflects that applicant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on June 26, 2026. Therefore, it was untimely filed and will be dismissed. If we were not dismissing the petition as untimely, we would deny it on the merits for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Amended Report.

The petition was filed after the deadline and was dismissed as untimely.

Determinative passage · p.5DISCUSSION We preliminarily address the issue raised by the WCJ as to the timeliness of defendant’s Petition. We observe that there are twenty (20) days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a “final” decision, plus five (5) calendar days if a party has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) In addition, if the party to be served is outside of California, but within the United States, the time in which to act is extended ten (10) calendar days from the date of service, or thirty (30) days total. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(2).) This 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.

The Appeals Board found defendant's petition timely because service was properly effectuated on June 12, 2026, and the petition was filed June 30, 2026, within the allowed time.

Determinative passage · p.7(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, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75-76].) Here, the order issued by the WCJ was a continuance, which is not a final order. Furthermore, applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration was filed well beyond 25 days from the issuance of the April 2026 minutes. Thus, to the extent that applicant seeks reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

The continuance order was not final; petition was filed late; petition dismissed.

Determinative passage · p.4A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that either “determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a “threshold” issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p.

The PWCJ’s June 22, 2026 Minute Order was not a final order as it resolved only an interlocutory procedural issue.

Determinative passage · p.2Turning now to the merits of the Petition, as the Appeals Board previously explained in their February 9, 2026 Opinion, there are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a “final” decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), former 10507(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600, former 10508.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed (i.e., received) by the Appeals Board within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10940(a), former 10845(a); 10615(a), former 10392(a).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to act upon or consider an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal. Comp. Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v.

The petition was received 147 days after the prior decision was served, thus untimely and not subject to consideration by the Appeals Board.