ADJ19844359 · March 16, 2026

The order was interlocutory and not a final order; applicant showed significant prejudice and irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and the record was inadequate regarding the venue change request.

From the decision · page 7Here, the order taking the matter off calendar and findings regarding the petition for change of venue were pre-trial interlocutory orders that did not determine any substantive right or liability and did not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, the order and the findings in the Minutes of Hearing are not "final" decisions. We will, therefore, dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and treat applicant's Petition as a Petition for Removal.

Applicant filed DOR and correspondence requesting venue change, providing notice to defendant, who opposed on record.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Showed that defendant had notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process and supporting removal.

From the decision · page 7V. In this matter, PWCJ determined that since applicant failed to a file a petition to change venue as required by section 5501.6, defendant was deprived of adequate due process including notice and an opportunity to be heard on applicant's request to change venue. (Report, at p. 6.) We disagree with this determination. As early as January 10, 2025, with her properly filed and served DOR, applicant provided notice that she wanted a change of court venue. On September 15, 2025, on the record, defendant opposed the change of venue which is evidence that they received notice of the same. That is, even

Order taking matter off calendar was interlocutory and not a final order.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Meant reconsideration was not proper, but removal was available.

From the decision · page 7Here, the order taking the matter off calendar and findings regarding the petition for change of venue were pre-trial interlocutory orders that did not determine any substantive right or liability and did not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, the order and the findings in the Minutes of Hearing are not "final" decisions. We will, therefore, dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and treat applicant's Petition as a Petition for Removal.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

Removal is granted only if petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

Applicant demonstrated significant prejudice and irreparable harm, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, so removal was granted.

From the decision · page 7IV. 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 significant 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, and for the reasons discussed below, the decision of the PWCJ is not supported by an adequate record with respect to the findings relating to the applicant's request to change venue. Accordingly, we conclude that applicant has shown that significant prejudice and irreparable harm will result, and that applicant will not have an adequate remedy upon reconsideration. Thus, we grant the Petition as one for removal.

Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; case law

A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.

The order taking the matter off calendar was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 6Now, we will consider the applicant's Petition. 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]). 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,

Applicant's DOR and correspondence provided notice of venue change request; defendant opposed on record, showing notice and opportunity to be heard.

From the decision · page 7V. In this matter, PWCJ determined that since applicant failed to a file a petition to change venue as required by section 5501.6, defendant was deprived of adequate due process including notice and an opportunity to be heard on applicant's request to change venue. (Report, at p. 6.) We disagree with this determination. As early as January 10, 2025, with her properly filed and served DOR, applicant provided notice that she wanted a change of court venue. On September 15, 2025, on the record, defendant opposed the change of venue which is evidence that they received notice of the same. That is, even