ADJ13812292 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Defendant's petition for reconsideration denied.

Petition for reconsideration of the PWCJ's decision issued on November 26, 2025, denied by the Appeals Board panel on March 27, 2026.

Read the official decision →

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Appeals Board treated the discovery order and evidence admission rulings as interlocutory and subject to removal standard, but denied removal because defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 4Although the decision contains findings that are final, the defendant challenges 1) the PWCJ's Discovery Order #1 denying defendant's petition for an order requiring applicant to execute a social security release, and 2) the PWCJ's Rulings and Order #9 denying defendant's Exhibit F, the Doctor's First Report, into evidence. These are interlocutory finding/orders subject to the removal standard rather than reconsideration pursuant to the discussion above. (See Gaona, supra.)

Reconsideration / removal

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code sections 5900, 5902, 5903

A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.

The Appeals Board found the PWCJ's decision to be a final order subject to reconsideration.

From the decision · page 3II. 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. (Maranian, supra, 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,

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

The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.

The Appeals Board denied removal because defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

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).)

ADJ13812292 · March 27, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page