Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The WCJ's June 30, 2021 order was interlocutory, not final, so reconsideration was improper.
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,
which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions,
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.
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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1,
2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the 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.