section 5950 writ of review in California

1992Consistent with *684 both the order in Camper’s case and Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d 1421 , Malloy also held that the 45-day time period for filing a petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 is not extended by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.

1992Appeals Bd., supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at page 1424 , italics in original.) The court held that the time for filing a petition for writ of review under Labor Code section 5950 is not extended by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 when the WCAB’s decision has been served by mail.

2025(Zurich, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1238-1239.) In contrast with Shipley, the petitioner in Zurich had not made inquiries prior to the 60-day deadline expiring and did not file a petition for writ of review under section 5950 within 45 days of the denial of its petition by operation of law.

2010Bigge Crane filed the instant petition for writ of review pursuant to section 5950. *1340 Discussion Whether a workplace injury is caused by the “serious and willful misconduct” of a company’s “managing officer” as those terms are used in section 4553 is a significant issue. 3 As the Supreme Court explained in Lambreton v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 498 [ 297 P.2d 9 ], “a claim for normal benefits and a claim for increased benefits by reason of serious and wilful misconduct are not sought upon the same general set of facts, nor do they involve merely a difference or change in legal

2010Bigge Crane filed the instant petition for writ of review pursuant to section 5950. *1340 Discussion Whether a workplace injury is caused by the “serious and willful misconduct” of a company’s “managing officer” as those terms are used in section 4553 is a significant issue. 3 As the Supreme Court explained in Lambreton v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 498 [ 297 P.2d 9 ], “a claim for normal benefits and a claim for increased benefits by reason of serious and wilful misconduct are not sought upon the same general set of facts, nor do they involve merely a difference or change in legal

2000(See Gumilla, supra, 187 Cal. at p. 640 .) Second, though we agree that deference should be accorded to WCAB policy decisions to reconsider interim final orders, in recognition of the particular expertise of the WCAB and its specialization in administering the workers’ compensation laws (see Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 338, 350-351 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 362 ]), the courts are not obliged to follow Board decisions found to be erroneous.

1993Appeals Bd. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 203 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 801 ], At issue in National Kinney was an employer’s challenge to a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board by petition for writ of review under Labor Code section 5950, which provides in part: “Any person affected by an order . . . of the appeals board may, within the time limit specified in this section, apply to the Supreme Court or to the court of appeal for the appellate district in which he resides, for a writ of review, for the purpose of inquiring into and determining the lawfulness of the original order . . . .” (Italic

1993Appeals Bd. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 203 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 801 ], At issue in National Kinney was an employer’s challenge to a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board by petition for writ of review under Labor Code section 5950, which provides in part: “Any person affected by an order . . . of the appeals board may, within the time limit specified in this section, apply to the Supreme Court or to the court of appeal for the appellate district in which he resides, for a writ of review, for the purpose of inquiring into and determining the lawfulness of the original order . . . .” (Italic

1992(Paneno, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 148 [applying decision overruling Villa prospectively because of reasonable reliance by litigants upon the former rule].) Prior to the decision in Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d 1421 , the accepted *689 rule in the Courts of Appeal was that Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 extended the time in which to file a petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950. ( Villa, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 1076 ; Hinkle, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d 587 ; Postural Therapeutics v. Workers’ Comp.

1992Appeals Bd., supra, 179 Cal.App.3d 551 .) 8 Moreover, although we have rejected petitioner’s argument relating to this point, we recognize that practitioners may have construed the regulations of the WCAB to embrace the Villa rule.

1992(Woods, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 330 ; Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) Limiting the retroactivity of our decision is also supported by the fact that the rule involved in this case is essentially a procedural one.

1992(Paneno, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 148 [applying decision overruling Villa prospectively because of reasonable reliance by litigants upon the former rule].) Prior to the decision in Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d 1421 , the accepted *689 rule in the Courts of Appeal was that Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 extended the time in which to file a petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950. ( Villa, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 1076 ; Hinkle, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d 587 ; Postural Therapeutics v. Workers’ Comp.

1992(Woods, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 330 .) The change affects only the calculation of the date before which a petitioner must file a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950.

1992(Woods, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 330 ; Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) Limiting the retroactivity of our decision is also supported by the fact that the rule involved in this case is essentially a procedural one.