What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed; petition for removal granted; WCJ order rescinded and matter returned for further proceedings
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as non-final order; petition for removal granted and matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order was interlocutory and not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration; the petition was treated as a petition for removal and granted to rescind the order and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition seeks reconsideration of a non-final order and will be dismissed. Instead, the petition will be treated solely as a petition for removal and we will grant removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's decision resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because the order was not final, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed and treated as a petition for removal instead.
From the decision · page 2Here, 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. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition for reconsideration will be dismissed. As the WCJ's decision resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, we will treat the petition solely as a petition for removal.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
From the decision · page 4On May 10, 2022 the court issued an order for the applicant to attend a medical evaluation with Jennifer W. Hsu, M.D. on June 2, 2022.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The order was interlocutory and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue, so it was not final and not subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1A 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,
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.