Norco Hills Car Wash; Hanover Insurance Company Jose Maldonado Gomez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE MALDONADO GOMEZ, Applicant,vs.NORCO HILLS CAR WASH; HANOVERINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ8119611 (Anaheim District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 16, 2013 Findings and Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a car washer/detailer, did not sustain industrial injury to his right elbow, neck, right hand, right upper extremity, right shoulder, face, or back. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing from defendant. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant’s injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of his employment. We have reviewed defendant’s Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) be denied, except that he recommended correction of a clerical error in the Findings and Order regarding applicant’s date of injury.1 We have considered the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition. Under Labor Code section 5902, petitions for reconsideration must “set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the petitioner considers the final order, decision or award made and 1 The claimed dates of injury were December 2004 through September 18, 2011, rather than December 2004 through September 18, 2012, as set forth in the Findings and Order. , filed by the appeals board or a workers’ compensation judge to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the appeals board.” (Lab. Code, § 5902.) Similarly, the Appeals Board’s rules require that a petitio
