Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration is taken only from a final order, decision, or award.
The November 7, 2024 order was not a final order, so the petition was considered under the removal standard.
From the decision · page 5II.
We also find it relevant here to discuss the distinction between a petition for
reconsideration and a petition for removal. A petition for reconsideration is taken only from a
"final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order is defined
as one that determines "any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" or a
"threshold" issue fundamental to a 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 [43Cal.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, injury AOE/COE, jurisdiction, the existence of an
employment relationship, and statute of limitations. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v.
Workers' Comp.
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 12, 2024, and the decision was issued on February 10, 2025, within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 4Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 12,
2024, and 60 days from the date of transmission is February 10, 2025. This decision was issued
by or on February 10, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section
5909(a).
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner can show that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
Applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy, so removal was denied and petition dismissed.
From the decision · page 6Removal 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 can show that
substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10955(a). The petitioner must also demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate
remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Id.) In the instant case, as
explained below, 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 applicant.