VERIZON WIRELESS; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, RICK HAVENS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARICK HAVENS, Applicant,vs.VERIZON WIRELESS; SEDGWICKCLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3190120 (SAL 0107186)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION ON BOARD MOTION, AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of this Appeals Board’s “Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration” of December 5, 2008, in which we dismissed, as untimely, applicant’s petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers’compensation judge (WCJ) on September 8, 2008. In addition, our decision noted that, even absent dismissal, we would have denied reconsideration for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report. Applicant contends, in substance, that the Board erred in dismissing his prior petition for reconsideration as untimely, and that the merits of the petition should be considered. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that applicant’s prior petition should be treated as having been timely-filed, but the petition should be denied on the merits. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration on our own motion, rescind our prior decision, and deny applicant’s original petition for reconsideration. The instant petition was filed by applicant on December 11, 2008. It contains a statement, verified under penalty of perjury, that the original petition for reconsideration was filed on October 3, 2008. Moreover, the instant petition appends a conformed copy of the original petition for reconsideration, showing that the original petition was filed on October 3, 2008, which was 25 , days after the WCJ’s decision of September 8, 2008. (See 2 California Workers Compensation Practice 4th (C.E.B.) (June 2007 Update) §§21.20-21.21, citing Labor Code section 5903.) We accept this verified statement in the conformed copy as showing that the original petitio
