Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days, so the petition was timely.
From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed
denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab.
Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant
part that:
Labor Code sections 5900, 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final.
The WCJ's order was interlocutory and procedural, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 3A 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.
California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 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.
Petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, so removal was denied.
From the decision · page 3We 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, based upon our review of the record and the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's
arguments in the Report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will