Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; 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
A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award, which determines a substantive right or threshold issue; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
Applied to dismiss the petition for reconsideration as not taken from a final order.
From the decision · page 3Addressing applicant's petition in further detail, we note that 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, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p.
1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"];
Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955; Cortez v. WCAB (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. WCAB (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to deny removal because applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 4Treating applicant's petition for reconsideration as a petition for removal, we note that
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 the applicant.