What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as not from a final order; petition for removal denied.
Petition for reconsideration and removal from an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary order by the WCJ; Board reviewed the record and WCJ's report.
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.
The WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary order, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues, so reconsideration does not lie. Removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate after a final decision.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's Order resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. 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 to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's order resolved only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not a substantive right or threshold issue.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This meant the order was not final, so reconsideration was not available.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's Order resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. 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 to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
Petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate after a final decision.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This justified denial of removal.
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).) 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.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Kohan's reports may be submitted as evidence but will not be treated as AME reports in this case.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Maranian v. WCAB; Rymer v. Hagler; Safeway Stores v. WCAB; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award, which determines a substantive right or liability or a threshold issue; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
Applied to dismiss the petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order was not final.
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,
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. WCAB; Kleemann v. WCAB
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to deny removal as 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).) 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 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.