Workers Compensation Appeals Board Susana Catellanos WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASUSANA CASTELLANOS,Applicant, vs. ANTOJITOS MEXICANO VELOZ; andSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3391443 (LBO 0372678) OPINION AND ORDERDISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION On December 21, 2009, defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), filed apetition seeking reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issuedby the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 30, 2009. By that order, the WCJ approved the parties’ Compromise and Release agreement (C&R) which settledthis case for the gross sum of $15,000.00. In addition, the order directed that $2,050.00 be deducted from the settlement for attorney’s fees to be paid to the Law Offices of George Henderson (Henderson). In its petition, SCIF asserts that: (1) the C&R actually requested $2,250.00 in attorney’sfees; and (2) the C&R requested an order that the attorney’s fees be held in trust by SCIF pending21 a determination by the WCJ on the appropriate allocation of the fees between applicant’s current and former attorneys. Preliminarily, the Appeals Board should have acted on SCIF’s petition for reconsideration within 60 days of its filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, the petition was not brought to the Appeals Board’s attention until May 22, 2010, when the Board received the file containing theWCJ’s May 12, 2010 Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report).27 Moreover, the WCJ’s Report reflects that SCIF’s petition was not timely brought to his attention , either. Accordingly, the Appeals Board’s failure to act on the petition was not due to the fault ofSCIF. Therefore,. due process requires us to determine the petition for reconsideration on its merits, without deeming it denied by operation of law under Labor Code section 5909. (Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57
