What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petition for Removal denied
Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by applicant challenging WCJ Order granting defendant CNA's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum; WCJ Report recommends denial of Petition
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 order quashing the subpoena is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed. The petition for removal is denied because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration will be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal (Petition), defendant CNA Insurance's answer (Answer), and the contents of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the Petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's order quashing the subpoena is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because it is not a final order, the petition for reconsideration is dismissed as improper.
From the decision · page 5The WCJ's decision here solely resolves an intermediate evidentiary issue, a petition to quash subpoena duces tecum. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision, and the Petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order quashing the subpoena.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such a showing, removal is not warranted and the petition for removal is denied.
From the decision · page 6Here, 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.
The order quashing subpoena was issued pending determination of coverage and is subject to further consideration by the WCJ.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This means the issue is not finally resolved and can be revisited, supporting denial of removal.
From the decision · page 6As noted above, the Order quashing is on its face a non-final order and as such subject to further consideration by the WCJ. The Order issued "pending determination of coverage." The WCAB may specifically defer issues for later determination; such issues remain pending and unresolved. (See General Foundry Serv. v. WCAB (Jackson) (1986) 42 Cal.3d 331, 337 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 375].)
There was no proof of service of the order to applicant until March 20, 2025.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This delayed notice supports finding the petition for removal was timely filed but does not justify removal.
From the decision · page 7WCAB Rule 10629 requires that "[w]ithin 10 days from the date on which designated service is ordered, the person designated to make service shall serve the document and shall file the proof of service." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10629(d), emphasis added.) Here, the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) does not reflect a filed proof of service for the Order quashing. The verified Petition establishes applicant's notice of the Order first occurred on March 20, 2025. Despite Stockwell Harris being designated for service, the proof of service for the Order is not in EAMS as required.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
The WCJ's order quashing the subpoena is an interlocutory procedural order and not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed.
From the decision · page 5A 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); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
A petition for removal requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The petition for removal is denied because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration will be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 5Removal 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
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Order quashing subpoena is interlocutory and not a final order; lack of proof of service of the order to applicant until March 20, 2025
From the decision · page 7WCAB Rule 10629 requires that "[w]ithin 10 days from the date on which designated service is ordered, the person designated to make service shall serve the document and shall file the proof of service." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10629(d), emphasis added.) Here, the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) does not reflect a filed proof of service for the Order quashing. The verified Petition establishes applicant's notice of the Order first occurred on March 20, 2025. Despite Stockwell Harris being designated for service, the proof of service for the Order is not in EAMS as required.
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.