Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

City of Salinas: Its Tolling Decision Must Be Read After Mayor

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 20, 2026

Decision: City of Salinas v. WCAB, No. H052062 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025).

The Court of Appeal allowed equitable tolling for Miraco’s delayed reconsideration petition, but that 2025 decision cannot be used without the Supreme Court’s later ruling in Mayor v. WCAB. Mayor rejects the Board’s power to extend its own deadline while leaving a narrow party-specific due-process question open. This analysis explains the original Salinas ruling and the precise limit on treating it as current authority.

Mayor, No. S287261 (Aug. 24, 2026), pages 24–29, 34, is the controlling source for that distinction. It expressly disapproved the broader due-process proposition in Shipley; it did not announce a case-specific final disposition of Salinas, No. S293212.

The actual file transmission occurred after the former deadline

Miraco timely petitioned on October 16, 2023, after a judge found his cardiac claim time-barred while awarding future treatment for other conditions. The judge served a denial recommendation November 7. The Board did not receive electronic transmission until January 12, 2024, and granted reconsideration March 12—after the former December 15 deemed-denial date. City of Salinas, filed opinion, pages 3–6.

The January 12 inquiry by counsel’s assistant came after that deadline. The Court of Appeal nonetheless found reliance on the Board’s reassurance reasonable in the then-existing circumstances. It did not rest its result on a fictional predeadline inquiry. City of Salinas, pages 7, 33–34.

Mandatory did not mean loss of fundamental jurisdiction

The Court of Appeal distinguished acting beyond a statutory limit from losing the basic power to hear workers’ compensation cases. It held former section 5909 mandatory but not a limit on fundamental subject-matter jurisdiction, then considered whether equity excused the late action. City of Salinas, pages 23–29.

Mayor later agreed that the former deadline was mandatory without eliminating fundamental jurisdiction, but rejected the further step of Board self-tolling. Retaining basic jurisdiction did not authorize the Board to extend its own decision deadline. Keep those propositions separate. Mayor, pages 11–24.

The 2025 court applied equity; Mayor later limited that route

The Salinas court considered timely notice of the claim and intent to litigate, lack of prejudice to the employer’s ability to defend on the merits, and reasonable good-faith conduct. It affirmed tolling on that record while rejecting systemic reliance on administrative breakdowns. City of Salinas, pages 30–35.

Mayor holds that the Board cannot invoke equitable tolling to enlarge its own action period. It separately reserved narrow circumstances in which a particular party might establish a due-process violation; no such claim was asserted by Ross Valley there. Timely filing and the expiration of sixty days alone do not establish that violation. Mayor, pages 24–29 and note 7. The reservation is not a holding that Miraco—or every blameless filer—qualifies for relief.

Distinguish the original affirmance from later treatment

The 2025 Court of Appeal affirmed the Board’s March 12, 2024 order. The Supreme Court then granted review in Salinas on November 19, 2025 and deferred action for Mayor or further order; its official minutes, page 1729, also denied depublication. Mayor’s August 24, 2026 opinion identifies Salinas among the held cases at page 6. This article does not establish a subsequent disposition of S293212 or predict one.

Mayor applied the former filing-based statute. Its page 5 note 3 and page 33 explain that the later statute retains a transmission-based trigger after the July 2026 sunset repeal. Identify the governing version and actual notice record rather than use the historical Salinas dates as a present rule.

Key takeaways

• Preserve conformed filing proof for every reconsideration petition.
• Distinguish excess of jurisdiction from lack of fundamental jurisdiction.
• Check later Supreme Court treatment and any case-specific order before relying on the 2025 equitable-tolling result.
• Do not treat agency fault as an automatic extension or a proven due-process violation.

Discussed in: WCAB Reconsideration: Filing Proof and Transmission Notice Are Different; Zenith v. WCAB: California Court Rejects 20-Month Grant-for-Study Delay.