Corey Evans vs. Firmanich Travelers

In this case, Corey Evans filed a petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision from December 20, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the petition was untimely and dismissed it. The Board noted that the time limit for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional and that the deadline for filing was March 6, 2014, but the petition was not filed until March 26, 2014. The Board also noted that even if the petition had been timely-filed, it would have been denied on the merits for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report.

FIRMANICH TRAVELERS COREY EVANS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACOREY EVANS, Applicant,vs.FIRMANICH; TRAVELERS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7644729(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDISMISSING PETITIONFOR RECONSIDERATION            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). However, based on our review of the record, it appears the untimely and must be dismissed.            Labor Code section 5903 allows twenty (20) days to file a petition for reconsideration, and the time for filing may be extended five (5) days for mailing (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013; WCAB Rule 10507). A petition for reconsideration is deemed filed on the day it was actually received at the appropriate district office and not on the date it was deposited in the mail. (Valle v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 38 Cal.Comp.Cases 468 (writ den.); Oliver v. Structural Services and Zenith National Ins, Co. (1978) 43 Cal.Comp.Cases 596 (Appeals Board Panel Opinion); County of Lake v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Helbush) (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 627 (writ den.).) The time limit for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional so that the Appeals Board lacks the power to grant an untimely peititon. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Scott v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008].)            Here, it appears that the Findings and Orders of December 20, 2013 were served on applicant’s attorney but not on applicant himself. However, applicant states in his Petition for Reconsideration that he had actual notice of the Findings and Orders on February 14, 2014. In that case, applicant had 20 , days, not 25 days, to file a timely petition for reconsidera

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.