What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petitions for Removal and Disqualification denied.
Petition for Reconsideration and Petitions for Removal and Disqualification filed by applicant, challenging interlocutory minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions, were considered by the WCJ and transmitted to the Appeals Board for decision.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 6, 2026.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
No detailed facts established disqualification; no unqualified opinion or bias by WCJ found.
From the decision · page 10On this record, and in the absence of detailed facts establishing disqualification we are unable to find that the WCJ expressed an "unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits" nor that the WCJ has shown "enmity against or bias toward either party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 641((f), (g)).
The April 8, 2026, minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions were interlocutory and did not determine a substantive right or threshold issue, thus not final orders subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4A. 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. 1075.) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions; reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 5B. 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, based on our review of the record as well as 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 minutes of hearing setting trial and the NOI to impose sanctions do not create substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as the applicant will be allowed to present a case at trial. Accordingly, we will also deny the Petition to the extent it seeks removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
April 8, 2026, minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions were interlocutory and did not determine substantive rights or threshold issues.
Favours Defendant prevailed
These were not final orders, so petition for reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 5Here, the April 8, 2026, minutes of hearing and NOI do not determine a substantive right or liability and do not determine a threshold issue but rather are interlocutory. Accordingly, they are not "final" decisions and applicant's petition for reconsideration will be dismissed.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from interlocutory orders; reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported denial of petition for removal.
From the decision · page 5B. 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, based on our review of the record as well as 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 minutes of hearing setting trial and the NOI to impose sanctions do not create substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as the applicant will be allowed to present a case at trial. Accordingly, we will also deny the Petition to the extent it seeks removal.
No detailed facts established disqualification or bias by WCJ; WCJ denied bias and stated willingness to determine higher fee if warranted.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supported denial of petition for disqualification.
From the decision · page 10On this record, and in the absence of detailed facts establishing disqualification we are unable to find that the WCJ expressed an "unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits" nor that the WCJ has shown "enmity against or bias toward either party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 641((f), (g)).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
Interlocutory minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions are not final orders subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4A. 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. 1075.) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm is shown and reconsideration is inadequate.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from interlocutory orders; reconsideration is adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 5B. 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, based on our review of the record as well as 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 minutes of hearing setting trial and the NOI to impose sanctions do not create substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as the applicant will be allowed to present a case at trial. Accordingly, we will also deny the Petition to the extent it seeks removal.
Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f), (g)
Disqualification requires detailed facts showing unqualified opinion or bias by the WCJ.
No detailed facts established disqualification; WCJ denied bias and willingness to determine higher fee if warranted.
From the decision · page 10On this record, and in the absence of detailed facts establishing disqualification we are unable to find that the WCJ expressed an "unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits" nor that the WCJ has shown "enmity against or bias toward either party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 641((f), (g)).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The April 8, 2026, minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions were interlocutory and did not determine substantive rights or threshold issues.
From the decision · page 5Here, the April 8, 2026, minutes of hearing and NOI do not determine a substantive right or liability and do not determine a threshold issue but rather are interlocutory. Accordingly, they are not "final" decisions and applicant's petition for reconsideration will be dismissed.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions; reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 5B. 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, based on our review of the record as well as 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 minutes of hearing setting trial and the NOI to impose sanctions do not create substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as the applicant will be allowed to present a case at trial. Accordingly, we will also deny the Petition to the extent it seeks removal.
No detailed facts established disqualification or bias by WCJ; WCJ denied bias and stated willingness to determine higher fee if warranted.
From the decision · page 10On this record, and in the absence of detailed facts establishing disqualification we are unable to find that the WCJ expressed an "unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits" nor that the WCJ has shown "enmity against or bias toward either party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 641((f), (g)).
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.