ADJ16790828 · February 2, 2026

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the prior decision was not final and the petition was not timely filed with the Appeals Board as required.

From the decision · page 3II. A 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.

The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 3On the contrary, the Appeals Board's Opinion and Order rescinded the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and defendant's Petition for Reconsideration will be dismissed. We 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.

The prior WCAB decision rescinded the WCJ's Findings & Order and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This meant the prior decision was not final, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as it could only be taken from a final order.

From the decision · page 3On the contrary, the Appeals Board's Opinion and Order rescinded the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and defendant's Petition for Reconsideration will be dismissed. We 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.

The petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without such a showing, removal, an extraordinary remedy, was denied.

From the decision · page 3On the contrary, the Appeals Board's Opinion and Order rescinded the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and defendant's Petition for Reconsideration will be dismissed. We 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.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.

The prior decision was not final as it rescinded the WCJ's Findings & Order and returned the matter for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 3II. A 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.

Lab. Code, § 5909

The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.

The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 4, 2025, and the decision was issued on February 2, 2026, within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 4, 2025 and 60 days from the date of transmission is February 2, 2026. This decision is issued by or on February 2, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 3On the contrary, the Appeals Board's Opinion and Order rescinded the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and defendant's Petition for Reconsideration will be dismissed. We 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.

Discrepancies in the documentary evidence and incomplete record undermined the credibility determinations of the WCJ.

From the decision · page 5task that would have been consistent with his alleged position as a yard security guard. Notably, this information is contained in Exhibit C, an exhibit submitted by defendant. These are significant discrepancies in the documentary evidence, clarification of which would benefit defendant as the current record tends to support a conclusion that applicant was defendant's employee. On the current record, the employer's testimony also contains discrepancies that undermine the credibility determinations. The record is not substantial, and the evidence does not support the WCJ's findings or opinion.