What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed and Petition for Removal denied.p. 5
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant seeking reconsideration of the Order taking the matter off calendar issued by the PWCJ on June 22, 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.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities.
From the decision · page 3(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. 45 [“[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, although applicant contends that he seeks reconsideration of a findings and order, the PWCJ did not issue a decision on the merits. Thus, it appears that applicant is, in essence, seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the PWCJ on June 22, 2026, wherein the PWCJ took the matter off calendar. The PWCJ’s decision solely to take a hearing off calendar resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The PWCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a petition for reconsideration must be filed from a final order, the petition was dismissed as the order was not final.
From the decision · page 3(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. 45 [“[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, although applicant contends that he seeks reconsideration of a findings and order, the PWCJ did not issue a decision on the merits. Thus, it appears that applicant is, in essence, seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the PWCJ on June 22, 2026, wherein the PWCJ took the matter off calendar. The PWCJ’s decision solely to take a hearing off calendar resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900, 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980); Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978); Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed from a final order, decision, or award that determines substantive rights or a threshold issue; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
The PWCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural decision and not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 3(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. 45 [“[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, although applicant contends that he seeks reconsideration of a findings and order, the PWCJ did not issue a decision on the merits. Thus, it appears that applicant is, in essence, seeking reconsideration of the Order issued by the PWCJ on June 22, 2026, wherein the PWCJ took the matter off calendar. The PWCJ’s decision solely to take a hearing off calendar resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The decision does not determine any substantive right
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence showing defendant's claims supervisor agreed to provide payment printout to applicant
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.