LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HOSPITAL; SEDGWICK CMS, ALICE PAXTON, (ALICE PAUL) WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAALICE PAXTON,(ALICE PAUL) Applicant,vs.LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HOSPITAL;SEDGWICK CMS, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3236057 (MON 0349393)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued May 28, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant did not sustain a compensable industrial injury and applicant was ordered to take nothing pursuant to her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. In a petition filed June 25, 2009, 28 days after issuance of the WCJ’s decision, applicant contends that the WCJ erred by failing to find that she sustained a compensable industrial injury arguing that her employer was aware of the injury prior to her termination, that substantial evidence supports her injury and that the WCJ relied upon incorrect medical evidence. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, and in the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), which we adopt and incorporate, we will dismiss applicant’s petition because it is untimely. We note that a party has twenty-five days 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, 5316; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10507.) These time limits are jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely filed petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 , Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v. Haler (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
