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; 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; Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final and not subject to reconsideration.
The petition sought reconsideration of an interlocutory procedural order, which is not final and thus not subject to reconsideration; therefore, the petition was dismissed.
From the decision · page 4II.
A 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" or determines a
"threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (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]; Maranian
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases
650].) Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, the following: injury AOE/COE,
Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg. (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 549 (Appeals Bd. en banc); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
The petition for removal is the proper method to seek review of interlocutory orders; removal is granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm is shown and reconsideration is inadequate.
The petition was treated as one for removal and denied because no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown.
From the decision · page 6The recent en banc decision issued by the Appeals Board2 in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart
Commissary and Mfg. (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 549 (Appeals Bd. en banc), affirmed that filing
petitions for reconsideration on interlocutory orders may be considered "frivolous and filed for the
purposes of delay in violation of section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10421." (Id., at 555.) "The petition
for removal is the method to seek review of interlocutory orders, those orders that do not rise to