Tijuna Biggins, Applicant v. Securitas Security Services USA Inc; Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Defendants

Full title: TIJUNA BIGGINS, Applicant v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA INC; SEDGWICK…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Aug 1, 2022

No. ADJ13421438 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Aug. 1, 2022)

Opinion

TIJUNA BIGGINS, Applicant v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA INC; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants No. ADJ13421438 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California August 1, 2022

Sacramento District Office

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR

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.

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).) 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.) 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, §§ 10940(a), 10615(b).)

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].)

The petition in this matter was filed on June 2, 2022. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ’s April 12, 2022 decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. We note that according to the proof of service attached to the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision, applicant was served with the decision on April 12, 2022.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DISMISSED.

I CONCUR,

JOSé H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER

MARGUERITE SWEENEY, COMMISSIONER