The February 18, 2025 WCAB decision was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, the petition was dismissed as untimely.
From the decision · page 2We first consider the petition in response to our February 18, 2025 Decision.
A 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,
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.
The petition for removal was filed on April 25, 2025, more than 25 days after the February 18, 2025 decision was served.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The petition was untimely under the regulatory time limits and was dismissed.
From the decision · page 3Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(b), 10940(a).) The petition in this matter was filed on April 25, 2025. This
was more than 25 days after the service of our February 18, 2025 Decision and beyond whatever
extension of time, if any, applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. If the
petition had been timely, we would have denied it on the merits for the reasons stated in our
February 18, 2025 Decision.
Applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the orders taking ADJ3117080 off calendar and continuing ADJ11896735.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such showing, removal is not warranted and the petition was dismissed on the merits.
From the decision · page 6The undersigned does not believe that applicant has established significant prejudice
or irreparable harm with regard to the order taking ADJ3117080 off calendar or the order
continuing ADJ11896735 to allow time for applicant to complete the pre-trial conference
statement.