What the panel ordered
The WCAB dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration filed on January 21, 2025, as untimely and improper for relitigating issues already decided, admonishing defendant and counsel for duplicative and meritless pleadings.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCAB's October 29, 2024 decision denying defendant's petition for reconsideration and granting lien claimant's petition for reconsideration solely to defer sanctions issue, affirming the WCJ's August 2, 2024 Findings and Order.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold October 29, 2024.
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 untimely and improperly sought to relitigate issues already decided by the Appeals Board, which is barred unless the party is newly aggrieved.
From the decision · page 5(i) Indisputably without merit; (ii) Done solely or primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; and/or (iii) Done solely or primarily for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation... *** (7) Presenting a claim or a defense, or raising an issue or argument, that is not warranted under existing law... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b).) Here, defendant filed a subsequent Petition that in effect basically duplicated its original petition for reconsideration. We admonish defendant's attorneys Negar Matian and the Matian Law Group, defendant employer Pacific Dental Services, LLC, and defendant insurer Arch Indemnity Insurance, as administered by Gallagher Bassett, for filing duplicative and meritless pleadings at the WCAB. This conduct could subject the offending party to sanctions pursuant to WCAB Rule 10421(b) as set forth above. Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Appeals Board acted on the petition within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
Favours neutral
This made the petition timely and procedurally proper to consider, but the petition was dismissed on other grounds.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on November 20, 2024, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, January 19, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Tuesday, January 21, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)2 This decision is issued by or on Tuesday, January 21, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
The defendant filed a successive petition for reconsideration with similar allegations to the original petition, which is barred unless newly aggrieved.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural bar led to dismissal of the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3II. It is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal..2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 382]; Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 287, 293-295 [14 IAC 221].) [italics added for emphasis.]. As stated in our en banc opinion in Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299:
The defendant and its counsel filed duplicative and meritless pleadings, which could subject them to sanctions under WCAB Rule 10421(b).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This conduct justified admonishment and dismissal of the petition.
From the decision · page 5(i) Indisputably without merit; (ii) Done solely or primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; and/or (iii) Done solely or primarily for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation... *** (7) Presenting a claim or a defense, or raising an issue or argument, that is not warranted under existing law... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b).) Here, defendant filed a subsequent Petition that in effect basically duplicated its original petition for reconsideration. We admonish defendant's attorneys Negar Matian and the Matian Law Group, defendant employer Pacific Dental Services, LLC, and defendant insurer Arch Indemnity Insurance, as administered by Gallagher Bassett, for filing duplicative and meritless pleadings at the WCAB. This conduct could subject the offending party to sanctions pursuant to WCAB Rule 10421(b) as set forth above. Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board, per Labor Code section 5909(a).
The Appeals Board acted on the petition within the 60-day period, issuing the decision on January 21, 2025, which was timely.
From the decision · page 2Former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604; Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296
A party who fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration cannot file a successive petition unless newly aggrieved, per Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) and Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002).
The defendant's petition was a successive petition with similar allegations, which is improper and barred.
From the decision · page 3II. It is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal..2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 382]; Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 287, 293-295 [14 IAC 221].) [italics added for emphasis.]. As stated in our en banc opinion in Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299:
Labor Code section 5813; WCAB Rule 10421(b)
The Appeals Board may impose sanctions for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, under Labor Code section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10421(b).
The defendant and its counsel were admonished for filing duplicative and meritless pleadings, which could subject them to sanctions.
From the decision · page 4III. The Appeals Board is authorized to impose sanctions, costs and attorney's fees under section 5813, which states, in pertinent part, that:
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.