We’re Innovative; State Compensation Insurance Fund Salvador Rodriguez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASALVADOR RODRIGUEZ, Applicant,vs. WE’RE INNOVATIVE; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. SDO 0322754 ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in said report which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. The WCJ’s Report preliminarily recommends that we dismiss applicant’s petition for reconsideration on three alternative grounds, Although any of these grounds might be a proper basis for dismissal, for the following reasons we will not dismiss applicant’s petition. First, the WCJ suggests that we dismiss applicant’s petition for reconsideration for lack of verification. As observed by the WCJ, Labor Code section 5902 requires that a petition for reconsideration be verified. Nevertheless, the failure to verify a petition is not a jurisdictional defect which mandates dismissal. (Wings West Airlines v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Nebelon) (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1047, 1055 [51 Cal. Camp. Cases 609, 614]; Mullane v. Industrial Ace. Com. (1931) 118 Cal.App. 283, 286 [17 lAC. 328, 330].) Moreover, the Appeals Board may excuse a failure to verify where the petitioner is self-represented. (Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1425, 1427, fn. 4 (Significant Panel Decision).) Therefore, we will not dismiss the petition for lack of verification. Second, the WCJ suggests that we dismiss applicant’s petition for reconsideration as being untimely. Of course, the time limits for filing a petition for reconsideration are jurisdictional and, , therefore, the Appeals Board may not consider an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Ma
