Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The WCJ's May 12, 2021 Minute Order was not a final order because it resolved only an intermediate procedural issue and did not determine any substantive right or liability or a threshold issue.
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,
are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.
From the decision · page 2We also deny the petition as one seeking 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.