What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant in pro per, dismissed as skeletal and unsupported by specific references to the record or law
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition was dismissed because it was skeletal, failed to state grounds for reconsideration, and lacked specific references to the record or law as required by Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rules.
From the decision · page 1Applicant dismissed her attorney and filed a Petition for Reconsideration, in pro per, on February 19, 2021. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition will be dismissed as skeletal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Petition for Reconsideration failed to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure made the petition subject to dismissal as skeletal under Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rules.
From the decision · page 2In accordance with section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972, the Appeals Board may dismiss or deny a petition for reconsideration if it is skeletal (e.g., Cal. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Tardiff) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 104 (writ den.); Hall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 253 (writ den.); Green v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 564 (writ den.)); if it fails to fairly state all of the material evidence, including that not favorable to it (e.g., Addecco Employment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rios) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1331 (writ den.); City of Torrance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Moore) (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 948 (writ den.); or if it fails to specifically discuss the particular portion(s) of the record that support the petitioner's contentions (e.g., Moore, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 948; Shelton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 70 (writ den.).) The Petition for Reconsideration filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore it is subject to dismissal.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5902
The petition for reconsideration must set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the petitioner considers the final order, decision or award to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the appeals board, verified upon oath, and contain a general statement of evidence or other matters supporting it.
The petition failed to meet these requirements and was dismissed as skeletal.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10842, now 10945
Every petition for reconsideration shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the points at issue and each contention shall be separately stated and clearly set forth.
The petition failed to fairly state all material evidence and was dismissed.
From the decision · page 1Moreover, the Appeals Board Rules provide in relevant part: (1) that "[e]very petition for reconsideration... shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue [and] [e]ach contention contained in a petition for reconsideration... shall be separately stated and clearly set forth" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10842, now § 10945 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020)); and (2) that "a petition for reconsideration... may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10846, now 10972
A petition for reconsideration may be denied or dismissed if unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved.
The petition lacked specific references to the record or law and was dismissed.
From the decision · page 2specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10846, now § 10972 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.