ADJ17466712 · May 8, 2026

The order continuing a status conference is not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration; removal is denied as applicant failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

From the decision · page 345 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the WCJ on February 27, 2026, wherein the WCJ continued the status conference held on February 26, 2026 to another status conference. The WCJ's decision solely to continue a hearing resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. 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. In the Report, the WCJ observes that although applicant logged into Court Call, because of connection issues, applicant could not appear and participate at the February 26, 2026 status

The WCJ's order continuing the status conference did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue, making it a non-final order.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Only final orders are subject to reconsideration; thus, the petition was dismissed.

From the decision · page 345 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the WCJ on February 27, 2026, wherein the WCJ continued the status conference held on February 26, 2026 to another status conference. The WCJ's decision solely to continue a hearing resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. 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. In the Report, the WCJ observes that although applicant logged into Court Call, because of connection issues, applicant could not appear and participate at the February 26, 2026 status

Applicant's due process rights were preserved by the WCJ continuing the hearing, and she will have an opportunity to participate at the next status conference.

Favours Defendant prevailed

No irreparable harm or significant prejudice was shown, so removal was denied.

From the decision · page 4conference, and that applicant did not fail to appear due to any fault of her own. We agree with the WCJ that applicant's due process rights were preserved when the WCJ continued the hearing to another status conference. Upon return to the trial level, we recommend that applicant attend the next status conference and be afforded the opportunity to address the claim of inconsistencies in the discovery records related to subpoenaed medical records, as well as any other issues related to discovery thereto. If the case is no longer scheduled on the Court's calendar for such a status conference, the WCJ should reset the case for a new status conference to afford applicant that opportunity.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.

Applied to dismiss the petition for reconsideration as the order continuing a status conference is not a final order.

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. (Maranian, supra, 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 procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955

Removal is only granted where there is irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or reconsideration is not an adequate remedy after a final order.

Applied to deny removal as applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

From the decision · page 1We have not received an Answer from either defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order. We will treat the Petition as seeking removal and deny removal as applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy after the issuance of a final order, decision or award. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955.)

Applicant's inability to appear at the status conference was due to technical issues, not her own fault, but her due process rights were preserved by the WCJ continuing the hearing.

From the decision · page 4conference, and that applicant did not fail to appear due to any fault of her own. We agree with the WCJ that applicant's due process rights were preserved when the WCJ continued the hearing to another status conference. Upon return to the trial level, we recommend that applicant attend the next status conference and be afforded the opportunity to address the claim of inconsistencies in the discovery records related to subpoenaed medical records, as well as any other issues related to discovery thereto. If the case is no longer scheduled on the Court's calendar for such a status conference, the WCJ should reset the case for a new status conference to afford applicant that opportunity.