Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; 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
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; a final order determines substantive rights or threshold issues, not intermediate procedural or evidentiary matters.
The WCAB found the order appealed from was not final as it did not determine substantive rights or threshold issues, so reconsideration was not available.
From the decision · page 1A 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,
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
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The WCAB found no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, so removal was denied.
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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1,
2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not
persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that
reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.