“A grant of reconsideration has the effect of causing “the whole subject matter [to be] reopened for further consideration and determination” (Great Western Power Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Savercool) (1923) 191 Cal.724, 729 [10 Industrial Acc. Com. 322]) and of “[throwing] the entire record open for review.””
(Perez, supra, at p. 11, quoting Great Western Power Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Savercool) (1923) 191 Cal. 724, 729; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (George) (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 201, 203.)
“Thus, once reconsideration has been granted, the Appeals Board has the full power to make new and different findings on issues presented for determination at the trial level, even with respect to issues not raised in the petition for reconsideration before it.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 11, citing Lab. Code, §§ 5907, 5908, 5908.5; Gonzales v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 360, 364.)
““[t]here is no provision in chapter 7, dealing with proceedings for reconsideration and judicial review, limiting the time within which the commission may make its decision on reconsideration, and in the absence of a statutory authority limitation none will be implied.””
(Gonzales, supra, at p. 364, as quoted in Perez, supra, at p. 11.)
“The WCAB has continuing jurisdiction over its orders, decisions, and awards. . . . At any time, upon notice and after an opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor.”
(Lab. Code, § 5803, as quoted in Perez, supra, at p. 11.)
““The WCAB . . . is a constitutional court; hence, its final decisions are given res judicata effect.””
(Azadigian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 372, 374, as quoted in Perez, supra, at p. 11.)
“A “final” order has been defined as one that either “determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]), or determines a “threshold” issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 11 [internal citations in original].)
“Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 11, citing Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075.)
“No cause of action arising out of any final order, decision or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers’ compensation judge shall accrue in any court to any person until and unless the appeals board on its own motion sets aside the final order, decision, or award and removes the proceeding to itself or if the person files a petition for reconsideration, and the reconsideration is granted or denied.”
(Lab. Code, § 5901, as quoted in Perez, supra, at p. 12.)
“We correct these clerical errors by virtue of this decision without granting reconsideration, as such errors may be corrected without further proceedings at any time.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 14, Opn. and Order Correcting Clerical Error (Aug. 14, 2025), citing Toccalino v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558.)
“Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 2.)
“Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, the following: injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE); jurisdiction; the existence of an employment relationship; and statute of limitations.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 4, citing Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658, 662.)
“Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 4.)
“If a decision includes a determination of a “threshold” issue, then it is treated as a “final” decision, regardless of whether all issues are resolved or whether there is an ultimate decision on the right to benefits.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 5, citing Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 783, 784, fn. 2 (Appeals Bd. en banc).)
“Where a decision contains both final and non-final determinations, it is a hybrid decision.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 5.)
“Thus, when a party challenges a hybrid decision, the petition seeking relief is treated as a petition for reconsideration because the determination on the threshold issue is final and binding on the Appeals Board and all parties to the case.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 5.)
“When a petition is treated as one for reconsideration, then, the Appeals Board follows section 5908.5 and considers the merits of any final findings, awards, or orders. If the Appeals Board does not disturb the final finding, award, or order, or affirms it, the parties’ remedy is to seek appellate relief.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 5, citing Lab. Code, §§ 5908.5, 5950 et seq.)
“If no further relief is sought, the finding, award, or order, is binding on all parties as the “law of the case.””
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 5, citing Lab. Code, § 5904; Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611.)
“However, where a petitioner challenges a WCJ’s determination regarding an interlocutory issue, the Appeals Board will apply the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions with respect to that issue.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 5.)
“Notably, decisions on interlocutory or interim issues by a WCJ or the Appeals Board may still be challenged by a petition for reconsideration once a final decision is issued.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 5.)
Cross-references: § 21.2 (the sixty-day period); ch. 25 (reopening & enforcement: reserved).
← § 21.2 · § 21.8 → · this section in the book