Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
The challenged orders were interlocutory procedural orders, not final decisions, so the petition for 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'
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 granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.
From the decision · page 2We will treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny it for the reasons stated below.
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.