Opinion
Sacramento District Office
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DEIDRA E. LOWE, COMMISSIONER.
Applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration on June 24, 2021 and has also filed correspondence dated July 19, 2021 that we will treat as supplemental pleading. Pursuant to our authority, we accept applicant’s supplemental pleading. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10848, now § 10964 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) We have considered the allegations of the 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, the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.
We caution applicant that “[a] party seeking to file a supplemental pleading shall file a petition setting forth good cause for the Appeals Board to approve the filing of a supplemental pleading and shall attach the proposed pleading.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10848, now § 10964 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) We expect applicant to comply with this requirement in the future.
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, former § 10507(a)(1), now § 10605(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10508, now § 10600 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10845(a), now § 10940(a); former § 10392(a), now § 10615(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
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. 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].)
In this case, the WCJ issued the decision on May 28, 2021. Based on the authority, cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, June 22, 2021 to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on June 24, 2021 is untimely and must be dismissed. As noted above, it is not sufficient for applicant have mailed the Petition for Reconsideration on June 22, 2021. Rather, it needed to have been filed by June 22, 2021. This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration.
If the petition had been timely, we would have denied it on the merits for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DISMISSED.
I CONCUR,
KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR, JOSé H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING NOT SIGNING