ADJ10035604 · October 12, 2026

The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed. However, the petition for removal was granted because the applicant demonstrated substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order taking the matter off calendar issued on July 16, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant contends that the matter should not have been taken off calendar, citing Labor Code 1 section 5502 and WCAB Rule 10759 (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 10759). Applicant further 0F

The WCJ's July 16, 2026 order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This meant the petition for reconsideration was not proper and had to be dismissed.

From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) 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. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’”]; Rymer, supra, at p.

Applicant alleged bad faith delays and non-cooperation by defendant.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported granting the petition for removal to avoid substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant.

From the decision · page 5In this case, the record indicates that both applicant and defendant submitted separate Pre-Trial Conference Statements. (Minutes of Hearing, May 19, 2026.) Given the allegations of bad faith delays and non-cooperation, the WCJ should work with the parties to incorporate their two separate statements into a joint Pre-Trial Conference Statement. We conclude that the applicant has demonstrated that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the applicant ultimately issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration, grant the Petition for Removal and rescind the Order. We return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural orders are not final.

The WCJ's July 16, 2026 order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order and not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) 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. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’”]; Rymer, supra, at p.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

The applicant demonstrated substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, so the petition for removal was granted.

From the decision · page 3Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).)

Allegations of bad faith delays and non-cooperation by defendant

From the decision · page 5In this case, the record indicates that both applicant and defendant submitted separate Pre-Trial Conference Statements. (Minutes of Hearing, May 19, 2026.) Given the allegations of bad faith delays and non-cooperation, the WCJ should work with the parties to incorporate their two separate statements into a joint Pre-Trial Conference Statement. We conclude that the applicant has demonstrated that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the applicant ultimately issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration, grant the Petition for Removal and rescind the Order. We return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.