ADJ10833788 · April 27, 2026

The January 21, 2026 Findings and Orders were interlocutory and not final, thus reconsideration was inappropriate. Removal was denied as petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 445 ["[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. In this matter, the January 21, 2026 Findings and Order makes no final orders, decisions, or awards. The issues set for trial on November 20, 2025 were (1) the Petition to Reopen for New and Further (Petition to Reopen) filed on March 9, 2022 and (2) whether there is a need for additional panels in the specialties of psychiatry, neurology, and internal medicine. The WCJ found that defendant did not prove the necessity of dismissing the Petition to Reopen or concluding that there was no proof of new and further disability at this time, and made a finding that applicant established a need for further discovery. These findings do not determine a substantive right or liability or a threshold issue. Rather, it is an interim, evidentiary decision that is not final.

The January 21, 2026 Findings and Orders were interlocutory and did not determine substantive rights or liabilities.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Because the order was not final, reconsideration was inappropriate and the petition was dismissed.

From the decision · page 445 ["[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. In this matter, the January 21, 2026 Findings and Order makes no final orders, decisions, or awards. The issues set for trial on November 20, 2025 were (1) the Petition to Reopen for New and Further (Petition to Reopen) filed on March 9, 2022 and (2) whether there is a need for additional panels in the specialties of psychiatry, neurology, and internal medicine. The WCJ found that defendant did not prove the necessity of dismissing the Petition to Reopen or concluding that there was no proof of new and further disability at this time, and made a finding that applicant established a need for further discovery. These findings do not determine a substantive right or liability or a threshold issue. Rather, it is an interim, evidentiary decision that is not final.

Petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure justified denial of the petition for removal.

From the decision · page 5Removal 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 significant 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 the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant 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.

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.

The case was transmitted on February 24, 2026, and the decision was issued on April 27, 2026, within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 3Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate.

From the decision · page 5Removal 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 significant 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 the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant 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.