California Labor Code § 5903

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.11Here, substantial evidence is required as decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to

The Board must ensure decisions are supported by substantial evidence and further develop the record if evidence is insufficient.

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.4(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654, 662 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 624]; DiFusco, supra, 90 Cal.Comp.Cases __.) In the event that the statutory provisions of the Labor Code are not adequate or convenient, “on appropriate motion and on appropriate showing of good cause, the trial judge has and should exercise the authority conferred on him by § [10330] of our rules to issue such interlocutory orders relating to discovery as he determines are necessary to insure the full and fair adjudication of the matter before him, to expedite litigation and to safeguard against unfair surprise.” (Hardesty v. Mccord & Holdren (1976) 41 Cal.Comp.Cases 111, 114) While the WCJ does have the power to resolve and encourage discovery, here there was no hearing on the issue of document production and no record created. Section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the “reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made.” The WCJ’s opinion on decision “enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753,

The Board found the WCJ's order lacked a record and reasons, making it impossible to review or support the decision.

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.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.2II. Petitioner claims that the record lacks substantial medical evidence in support of a finding of injury AOE/COE. Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Pursuant to section 5705, the “burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue.” (Lab. Code, § 5705.) “All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Lab. Code §3202.5.) “A lien claimant... has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is industrial....” (Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

The WCJ found Dr. Nikakhtar’s medical opinion met these standards and constituted substantial evidence of injury AOE/COE.

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.