Albertsons; Specialty Risk Services Rhonda Curtis-King WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARHONDA CURTIS-KING, Applicant,vs.ALBERTSONS; SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ2596776 (SAC 0280754)ADJ185110 (SAC 0280755)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Applicant Rhonda Curtis-King seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued in Case No. ADJ2596776 on May 27, 2011, and of the Amended Findings and Award issued in Case No. ADJ1885110 on June 6, 2011, by a workers’ compensation administrative lawjudge (WCJ). In Case No. ADJ2596776, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a bakery clerk “during a cumulative period to May 27, 1997, sustained industrial injury to her feet, upper extremities and psyche, causing permanent disability of 43% and the need for further medical treatment. In Case No. ADJI885110, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a bakery clerk “during a cumulative period from July 17, 1998 to October 16, 1998, sustained industrial injury to her feet, upper extremities and psyche, causing permanent disability of 19% and the need for further medical treatment. Applicant contends that (1) the case of Benson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535 [74 Cal.Comp.Cases 113] does not apply because there is really only one injury, not two; and (2) “vocational expert evidence should not be ignored.” We first note that, as correctly indicated by the WCJ in his “Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration” (report), that “as to ADJ2596776, applicant’s petition is untimely.” More specifically, applicant’s petition for reconsideration was filed on June 27, 2011, or more than twenty-five days after the issuance of the WCJ’s decision in ADJ2596776 on May 27, 2011 (Lab. Code, , § 5903, Code of Civ. Proc., § 1013; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8. § 10507).1 In the Addendum to his report, t
