What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed; Petition for Removal is denied.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration and removal after the WCJ denied its petition to dismiss; the WCAB reviewed the WCJ's report and dismissed the reconsideration petition as not from a final order, and denied removal.
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 WCJ's denial of defendant's Petition to Dismiss was an intermediate procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration is not available. Removal is denied because no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown, and summary judgment is not permitted in workers' compensation proceedings.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's December 30, 2020 denial of defendant's Petition to Dismiss is solely an intermediate procedural order. It does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Therefore, it is not a "final" decision. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks reconsideration, treat it as a petition requesting removal, and deny removal for the reasons stated below.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's December 30, 2020 denial of defendant's Petition to Dismiss was an intermediate procedural order, not a final order.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Only final orders are subject to reconsideration; this was not final, so reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's December 30, 2020 denial of defendant's Petition to Dismiss is solely an intermediate procedural order. It does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Therefore, it is not a "final" decision. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks reconsideration, treat it as a petition requesting removal, and deny removal for the reasons stated below.
Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Removal is only granted if such harm is shown; thus, removal was denied.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking removal.
Summary judgment is not permitted in workers' compensation proceedings.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Defendant's petition to dismiss was tantamount to a request for summary judgment, which is not allowed, supporting denial of relief.
From the decision · page 2The relief that defendant appears to seek in filing a petition to dismiss is tantamount to a request for summary judgement which is not permitted in workers' compensation proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10490, now § 10515 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; Cortez v. WCAB (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. WCAB (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274.
A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award; a final order determines a substantive right or threshold issue. Removal is granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. Summary judgment is not permitted in workers' compensation proceedings.
The WCAB found the order was not final and denied reconsideration; removal was denied for lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and summary judgment is not allowed.
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.