Understanding Petitions to Reopen in California Workers' Compensation: What You Need to Know
What Is a Petition to Reopen?
A petition to reopen is a legal mechanism that allows parties to request that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) revisit a previously decided case. Under [LC § 5803](https://app.sullivanoncomp.com/external_resources?type=LAB&number=5803) and [LC § 5410](https://app.sullivanoncomp.com/external_resources?type=LAB&number=5410), the WCAB has continuing jurisdiction to "rescind, alter, or amend" any decision, order, or award within five years from the date of injury upon a showing of good cause.
The Five-Year Rule: A Critical Timeline
The most important aspect of petitions to reopen is the five-year limitation period. Both [LC § 5803] and [LC § 5410}establish that a petition to reopen must be filed within five years from the date of injury.
As the Court of Appeal held in *Nolan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 122, 127, "the only real requirements are that some sort of filing is made with the WCAB within five years, and that the defense is put on notice of the applicant's claim of new and further disability."
Once the five-year period expires, the WCAB loses jurisdiction to modify the award, as confirmed in *Martino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 485, 489-490.
No Medical Documentation Required at Filing: A Common Misconception
One of the most persistent misconceptions about petitions to reopen is that they must be accompanied by medical documentation at the time of filing. This is simply not true. In *Fitzpatrick v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1970) 27 Cal.App.3d 228, 234, the court established that a petition to reopen need not be supported by medical evidence at the time of filing.
The court in *Nickelsberg v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1991) 54 Cal.3d 288, 297-298 further clarified that an applicant need not obtain proof of new and further disability within five years of the injury. Medical evidence acquired more than five years after the date of injury may be used to support a timely petition to reopen.
This principle has been consistently upheld by the WCAB in cases such as *Rosas v. State of California* (2021 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 123) and *Aguirre v. Marriott Int'l* (2019 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 45), which confirm that the timely filing preserves jurisdiction, while the evidence to support the petition can be developed during litigation.
What Constitutes "New and Further Disability"?
To successfully reopen a case under [LC § 5410](https://app.sullivanoncomp.com/external_resources?type=LAB&number=5410), an applicant must demonstrate "new and further disability." While not defined by statute, courts have interpreted this term to mean "disability which results from some demonstrable change in an employee's condition," as stated in *Westvaco Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 940, 945.
New and further disability typically includes:
1. A recurrence of temporary disability
2. A new need for medical treatment
3. The change of a temporary disability into a permanent disability
4. A gradual increase in permanent disability
As clarified in *Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.* (1966) 65 Cal.2d 287, 290, the new and further disability must be real and proven with new evidence, represent a change from the condition at the time of the original award, and be causally related to the industrial injury.
"Good Cause" for Reopening Under LC § 5803
While new and further disability is one basis for reopening, [LC § 5803] provides a separate ground: "good cause." The WCAB has broad authority to reopen a case for good cause, which may include:
1. Mistake of fact or law
2. Inadvertence
3. Newly discovered evidence
4. Fraud
5. Any factor unknown at the time of the original award that renders it inequitable
In *Bartlett Hayward Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission* (1928) 203 Cal. 522, 532, the court established that good cause requires "some ground, not within the knowledge of the appeals board at the time of making the former award or orders, that renders said original award or orders inequitable."
Newly Discovered Evidence: A Pathway to Reopening
Newly discovered evidence can constitute good cause to reopen, but it must meet specific criteria as outlined in *Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Industrial A. C.* (1936) 6 Cal.2d 314, 317:
1. It must be discovered after the decision was made
2. It cannot be merely cumulative of evidence presented at the original hearing
3. It must be evidence that could not have been discovered or produced at the original hearing with reasonable diligence
Importantly, as held in *Wallin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 289, 294, medical evidence obtained after the original decision that merely disagrees with the medical opinion relied upon by the WCAB does not constitute good cause.
Fraud and Reopening After Five Years
While the five-year limitation is generally strict, there is a narrow exception for cases involving extrinsic fraud or mistake. In *Azevedo v. Abel* (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 451, 458-459, the court recognized that extrinsic fraud occurs when a party is prevented from presenting their claim or defense in the original proceeding due to the actions of the opposing party.
However, this is an extremely high bar to meet. As clarified in *Pizarro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 887, 891, intrinsic fraud, such as perjured testimony, is generally insufficient to reopen a case after the five-year period.
Practical Tips for Filing Petitions to Reopen
Based on case law and WCAB decisions, here are some practical tips for those considering filing a petition to reopen:
1. **File early**: Don't wait until the end of the five-year period. Filing early gives you time to develop the necessary evidence.
2. **Be specific**: While "skeletal" petitions are technically sufficient under *Nolan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 122, 127, providing specific allegations about the nature of the new and further disability can help avoid delays.
3. **Return to the same medical evaluator**: [LC § 4067](https://app.sullivanoncomp.com/external_resources?type=LAB&number=4067) requires using the same medical evaluator(s) when a petition to reopen is filed after an award.
4. **Document changes**: Ensure medical evidence clearly documents how the condition has changed since the original award, not just that it's different from what was previously reported, as required by *Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.* (1966) 65 Cal.2d 287, 290.
5. **Consider liberal construction**: Remember that [LC § 3202] mandates liberal construction of the Workers' Compensation Act to extend benefits to injured workers, as affirmed in *Merriweather v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 964, 970.
Conclusion
Petitions to reopen serve an important function in California's workers' compensation system, allowing for adjustments when an injured worker's condition changes or new evidence emerges. Understanding the five-year limitation, the standards for new and further disability, and what constitutes good cause can help both applicants and defendants navigate this complex area of law.
Remember that the timely filing of a petition to reopen preserves jurisdiction, and medical documentation is not required at the time of filing, as established in *Fitzpatrick v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* (1970) 27 Cal.App.3d 228, 234. Evidence can be developed during litigation, consistent with the system's goal of ensuring injured workers receive appropriate benefits as their conditions evolve.
Whether you're an injured worker, employer, or legal professional, understanding these principles can help ensure that workers' compensation cases are resolved fairly and in accordance with California law.