Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
The prior decision was interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration was improper.
From the decision · page 1We have received an answer from defendant.
We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration.
Based on our review of the record and the allegations of the Petition, and for the reasons
contained in our April 15, 2024 Decision, we will dismiss the Petition to the extent it seeks
reconsideration, and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
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" (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)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
Removal was denied due to lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 2We will also deny the petition to the extent it seeks removal. Removal 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).)
Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or
irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate
remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421
Sanctions may be imposed for bad faith or improper purpose, including disrespectful language or gestures.
Petitioner's tone bordered on sarcasm and lack of respect, warranting admonishment and potential sanctions.
From the decision · page 2Finally, we find it necessary to admonish petitioner to the extent that the tone of the Petition
borders on sarcasm and indicates a lack of respect for the judicial system and process (i.e.,
advancing a legal argument that "the Commissioners have [inadvertently] created a new rule, i.e.
the Donald J. Trump method for disqualifying workers compensation judges"). Such statements
are not only inappropriate, they detract from the arguments being made by counsel on behalf of
their client, and are in direct conflict with their oath as an attorney and officer of the court.1