CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ7020366
Regular
Aug 22, 2013

OCTAVIO GONZALEZ vs. BODEGA LATHE CORPORATION, PACIFIC COMP INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Octavio Gonzalez's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was submitted more than 25 days after the administrative law judge's decision, exceeding the 20-day statutory limit, which can be extended by five days for mail. Because the deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the authority to consider it. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits as well.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictional time limitLabor Code section 5903Administrative Law JudgeWCJ's Report and RecommendationMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ7375150 ADJ11026324
Regular
Oct 01, 2020

GLORIA DUGGAN vs. NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, TRISTAR

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Gloria Duggan. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed significantly after the 25-day deadline, making it untimely. The Board noted that filing deadlines for reconsideration are jurisdictional and cannot be extended. However, the WCAB recommended that the trial judge consider the petition as a request to enforce awarded medical treatment, given the applicant's allegations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissaljurisdictionalfiling deadlinemail serviceproof of filingmedical treatmentprior award
References
Case No. ADJ7570196
Regular
Apr 21, 2017

ERIK SPEARMAN vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND, administered by THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund. The petition was dismissed because it was untimely, filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision. The WCAB emphasized that the filing deadline is jurisdictional and that a petition must be *received* by the Board within the allowed time. If the petition had been timely, it would have been denied on the merits.

SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUNDPetition for Reconsiderationuntimely filingjurisdictionalAppeals BoardWCJ decisiondeadlineproof of filingmailingservice
References
Case No. ADJ481937 (RIV 0081478)
Regular
Mar 08, 2018

JERRY OLVERA vs. CEMENT UNLIMITED, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

In Olvera v. Cement Unlimited, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was electronically filed one day after the jurisdictional deadline of January 23, 2018, as the Order Dismissing Lien was served by mail on December 29, 2017. The Board reiterated that the filing deadline is jurisdictional and requires actual receipt of the petition, not just proof of mailing. Therefore, the Appeals Board lacked the authority to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailProof of FilingElectronic FilingOrder Dismissing LienMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ6961731, ADJ6959844, ADJ6959868
Regular
May 03, 2019

ANTONIO ROMERO vs. MEXICAN AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY FOUNDATION, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, PMAIC, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Antonio Romero's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed one day after the jurisdictional deadline of March 4, 2019. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be *received* by the WCAB within the statutory period, not just mailed. Since the petition was not received within the allowed time, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalAdministrative Law JudgeLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalJoint FindingsDate of Filing
References
Case No. ADJ8438087
Regular
Feb 24, 2017

CONSUELO ACEVEDO vs. SYSTEM SOLDING USA, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending a prior decision to find that Tri-City Health Group's lien was timely filed. The Board affirmed the finding that Komberg Chiropractic's lien was barred by the statute of limitations due to late filing on December 29, 2015, when services ended December 28, 2012. However, Tri-City Health Group's lien, filed electronically on March 21, 2016, was deemed timely, as the deadline of March 19, 2016, fell on a weekend and the next business day was utilized. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding Tri-City Health Group's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsStatute of LimitationsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 4903.5EAMSElectronic FilingBusiness DayTimely Filed
References
Case No. ADJ9109256
Regular
Oct 27, 2016

STACY GARRAFA vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.; ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was untimely. California law allows 25 days to file a petition for reconsideration after a decision is served by mail, with potential extensions for weekends or holidays. However, the petition must be *received* by the Board within this period, not merely mailed. In this case, the petition was filed on September 7, 2016, which was over 25 days after the August 12, 2016 decision. As the filing deadline is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWCJ decisionFiling deadlineJurisdictionalAppeals BoardMailing vs. FilingOctober 272016
References
Case No. ADJ8975403, ADJ8975401
Regular
Feb 29, 2016

LEOPOLDO SIMENTAL LOPEZ vs. ELYJRS PUMPING AND SEPTIC SYSTEM, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPLIED RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Leopoldo Simental Lopez's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline after the WCJ's decision. The WCAB clarified that filing means actual receipt by the board, not just mailing. Therefore, the board lacked authority to consider the untimely petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissedfiling deadlineservice by mailjurisdictional time limitWCJ decisionAppeals Board authorityCal. Code Regs.
References
Case No. ADJ4118189 (SAC 0353264)
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

JONATHAN WOODARD vs. FLOWMASTER MUFFLER, VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The dismissal was based on the untimeliness of the petition, which was filed on February 24, 2014. This date was over 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was served on December 5, 2013. The WCAB emphasized that the deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional. Therefore, the Board lacked the authority to grant the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Filing DeadlineJurisdictional Time LimitAppeals BoardWCJ's DecisionService of OrderDismissalCode Civ. Proc. § 1013
References
Case No. MON 0279679
Regular
Jun 26, 2008

EILEEN HALPERN vs. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hertz Corporation's request to reconsider its dismissal of Hertz's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Hertz's petition was untimely because it was filed with the San Francisco district office, rather than directly with the Appeals Board itself, as required by Rule 10840 for decisions issued by the Board. Even if the petition had been lodged with the district office on the filing deadline, it was not received by the Appeals Board itself within the statutory timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for reconsiderationUntimely filingWCAB Rule 10840District office filingAppeals Board filingMandatory and jurisdictionalReconsideration on Board motionLabor CodeCode of Civil Procedure
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,072 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational