What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as the WCJ's denial of testimony motion was an interlocutory procedural/evidentiary decision, not a final order; dismissal affirmed by WCAB panel decision dated March 9, 2026.
Petition for reconsideration filed by applicant pro per, challenging WCJ's denial of motion to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Glenn Cohen at trial; WCJ issued Order Vacating Submission and Report recommending dismissal; case transmitted to Appeals Board on January 8, 2026; WCAB timely acted on petition within 60 days.
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 denial of the motion to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Cohen was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues, thus the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as not final.
From the decision · page 3A 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.