Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075; 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; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45
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 decision was not a final order, so reconsideration is 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,
are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).)
Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, 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. Accordingly, we
will deny the petition to the extent it seeks removal.
Lab. Code, § 5311; Code Civ. Proc., § 641; WCAB Rule 10960
A party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641, but must set forth facts declared under penalty of perjury.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts to establish disqualification.
From the decision · page 4Here, as discussed in the WCJ's report, the petition for disqualification does not set forth
facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to
Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f)
and/or (g). Accordingly, we will deny the petition to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJ.