ADJ11246488 · August 18, 2026

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order was not a final order and denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 1On January 23, 2025, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the August 24, 2024 Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). On February 3, 2025, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an Order Rescinding the OACR and setting the matter for a status conference (Order). Defendant filed a Petition for Removal or in the alternative Reconsideration, contending in pertinent part that its due process rights were violated when the WCJ issued the Order without conducting a hearing and that the Order should be vacated. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record and based on the analysis by the WCJ in her Report, and as discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny the Petition to the extent it seeks removal.

The WCJ's order rescinded the OACR to allow the petition to be heard but was not a final order determining substantive rights.

Favours Defendant prevailed

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

From the decision · page 6Interlocutory 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. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders”].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, the WCJ’s decision solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Based on the language in the Order, the WCJ rescinded the OACR so that applicant’s petition to set aside could be heard. Once the WCJ has issued a new decision on the issue of whether the OAC&R is set aside and/or, either party may seek reconsideration. Accordingly, it is not a “final” decision, and the Petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board.

The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This justified denial of the petition for removal.

From the decision · page 6(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).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Lab. Code, §§ 112, 115, 5301, 5901, 5908.5, 5950; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10320, 10330

Only the Appeals Board is statutorily authorized to issue a decision on a petition for reconsideration and must conduct de novo review of the merits.

The Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order was not final.

From the decision · page 2Only the Appeals Board is statutorily authorized to issue a decision on a petition for reconsideration. (Lab. Code, §§ 112, 115, 5301, 5901, 5908.5, 5950; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10320, 10330.) The Appeals Board must conduct de novo review as to the merits of the petition and review the entire proceedings in the case. (Lab. Code, §§ 5906, 5908; see Lab. Code, §§ 5301, 5315, 5701, 5911.) Once a final decision by the Appeals Board on the merits of the petition issues, the parties may seek review under Labor Code section 5950, 1 but appellate review is limited to review of the record certified by the Appeals Board. (Lab. Code, §§ 5901, 5951.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award, which determines substantive rights or threshold issues.

The WCJ's order was interlocutory and did not determine substantive rights, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 5A 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]).

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 inadequate.

The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal as the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was adequate.

From the decision · page 6(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).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Lack of interpreter and handwritten changes to C&R after signing alleged by applicant

From the decision · page 2The Application was later amended to include injury to knees, hips, back, and deep vein thrombosis. Applicant became unrepresented, and she entered into a Compromise and Release (C&R) on August 6, 2024. The C&R included the addition of a second alleged cumulative injury for the period from January 1, 2014 through May 23, 2024 to multiple body parts. (ADJ19643909) The C&R was approved on August 6, 2024. Applicant’s attorney’s fees were held in trust. Applicant then filed a Petition for Reconsideration on January 21, 2025 alleging, in part, that she did not have an interpreter on August 6, 2024 when she agreed to the C&R, that handwritten changes were made to the C&R after she signed it, that the alleged cumulative injury was not explained to her, and that she was no longer working for defendant at the time of end of the claimed cumulative injury period. In response, the WCJ issued the Order.

No minutes of hearing or statement of evidence on settlement; incomplete record for review of settlement adequacy

From the decision · page 8Here, it is not clear from the record whether the C&R was submitted as a walk through, and there are no minutes of hearing or statement of evidence upon which we can review the settlement. The only medical records entered into EAMS are three qualified medical evaluator (QME) reports. None of the reports discuss a cumulative injury and one of the reports defers the issue of organ prolapse and other body parts to other specialties. A Medicare Set Aside was procured, approved, and attached to the settlement. However, the approval letter from Center for Medicare Services is dated April 27, 2020, four years prior to the approval of the C&R and prior to the internal QME report dated August 21, 2023 finding additional compensable body parts. This raises questions as to whether Medicare interests have been properly considered. Additionally, the record does not appear to include a printout of benefits, wage statement, benefit notices, permanent disability ratings either by the parties or the Disability Evaluation Unit. The aforementioned items