What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed; petition for removal granted; July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators rescinded; case returned to trial level
Petition for reconsideration and removal of the July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators; reconsideration granted previously; now vacated and removal granted; case returned to trial level for further proceedings
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 July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed; removal was granted due to significant prejudice or irreparable harm if denied.
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'
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators was an intermediate procedural order that did not determine any substantive right or liability or a threshold issue.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because it was not a final order, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators is an intermediate procedural order. 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.
Significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal of the July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This justified granting the petition for removal and rescinding the order.
From the decision · page 2However, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied. Therefore, we grant removal, rescind the July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators, and return these matters to the trial level for further proceedings as the WCJ determines appropriate.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The July 13, 2021 Order Changing Administrators was not a final order because it was an interlocutory procedural order, so reconsideration was dismissed.
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'
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.