What the panel ordered
Vacated prior Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration; dismissed applicant's Petition for Removal or Reconsideration in the Alternative.
Petition for Removal or Reconsideration in the Alternative filed by applicant after WCJ's pre-trial conference order; WCJ recommended denial of removal; WCAB reviewed and dismissed petition as interlocutory orders were not final.
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 was dismissed because the WCJ's pre-trial conference orders were interlocutory and not final orders, thus not subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 445 [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. 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. As relevant here, the WCJ issued two interlocutory orders: (1) Setting the matter for trial; and (2) Staying medical-legal discovery, except as to chiropractic, pending the outcome of the trial.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's pre-trial conference orders setting the matter for trial and staying medical-legal discovery were interlocutory procedural orders, not final orders.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because petitions for reconsideration may only be taken from final orders, the petition was dismissed.
From the decision · page 445 [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. 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. As relevant here, the WCJ issued two interlocutory orders: (1) Setting the matter for trial; and (2) Staying medical-legal discovery, except as to chiropractic, pending the outcome of the trial.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code 5900(a)
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
The WCJ's orders were interlocutory and not final, so the petition was dismissed.
From the decision · page 3(Italics added; Lab. Code § 5900(a).) A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only
Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068
Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not considered final orders and are not subject to petitions for reconsideration.
The WCJ's orders setting trial and staying discovery were interlocutory and not final, so the petition was dismissed.
From the decision · page 445 [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. 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. As relevant here, the WCJ issued two interlocutory orders: (1) Setting the matter for trial; and (2) Staying medical-legal discovery, except as to chiropractic, pending the outcome of the trial.
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.