City of Salinas v. WCAB: When Can the 60-Day Reconsideration Deadline Be Tolled?

City of Salinas v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 113 Cal.App.5th 801 (2025), concerns a reconsideration deadline missed because of administrative delay.

The Court of Appeal treated the deadline as mandatory but allowed equitable tolling on the particular record before it.

Read the published opinion on CourtListener.

A Police Officer’s Heart Claim

Lance Miraco, a Salinas police officer, filed a December 2020 cumulative-injury claim through December 31, 2013. The claimed conditions included orthopedic injuries, hypertensive cardiac disease, gastrointestinal conditions, and insomnia.

The WCJ Found the Heart Claim Time-Barred

The WCJ found several industrial injuries but assigned the heart condition a June 14, 2013 injury date under Labor Code section 5412. The judge held that the December 2020 heart claim was barred by section 5405, while awarding future care for other conditions.

Miraco timely petitioned for reconsideration on October 16, 2023. He argued that the first medical opinion establishing industrial permanent disability from the heart condition came in September 2021.

Administrative Delay Pushed the Petition Beyond 60 Days

The Board did not receive the transmitted file in time to act within former section 5909’s 60-day period. Miraco’s counsel followed up and relied on communications indicating that the petition would be considered after the transmission problem was corrected. The Board eventually granted reconsideration, applied equitable tolling, and found the cardiac injury compensable.

The Deadline Was Mandatory

The Sixth District agreed that the deemed-denied language imposed a mandatory deadline and that late action ordinarily exceeds the Board’s jurisdiction. But it distinguished action in excess of jurisdiction from complete loss of fundamental subject-matter jurisdiction. The statute did not clearly eliminate the Board’s basic power to act, so equitable tolling was not categorically barred.

Why Tolling Applied

Miraco timely notified the City through his petition, the delay caused no unfair prejudice, and counsel acted reasonably and in good faith by monitoring the matter and relying on Board communications. The administrative problem was outside the worker’s control.

The Exception Is Narrow

The court did not approve a general rule that administrative delay restarts the clock. Equitable tolling cannot cure routine backlogs. Its holding rested on timely filing, diligent inquiries, reassuring or misleading communications, lack of prejudice, and an unusual administrative failure.

Practical Lessons

Preserve a file-stamped petition and proof of service, monitor EAMS, follow up in writing before the deadline expires, and retain Board communications. A deemed denial may start the short period for seeking writ review even if the Board later acts.

Supreme Court Review Is Pending

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mayor may approve, narrow, or reject this equitable-tolling approach. For now, City of Salinas is best described as persuasive authority recognizing tolling on an unusually strong record—not a general deadline extension.