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.
From the decision · page 31075 ("interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final'"); Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180 ("[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"); Kramer, supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at p. 45 ("[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders").) Such interlocutory decision include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. The WCJ's order to defendant to pay sanctions and costs is a determination of a substantive right or liability of defendant. Thus, the WCJ's Order is a final order subject to reconsideration, and we treat the Petition as one for reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant did not rebut the presumption of receipt of the invoice served on December 20, 2019.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the imposition of sanctions for untimely payment.
Defendant promptly paid the invoice on August 19, 2020, after the Petition for Costs was served.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This mitigated the amount of sanctions imposed.