What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 19, 2024, starting the 60-day period for Board action on the petition.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the deadline for timely action on the petition for reconsideration under Labor Code section 5909.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 19,
2024 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, February 17, 2025. The next business
day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Tuesday, February 18, 2025. (See Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)2 This decision is issued by or on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, so that we
have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
The WCJ's December 4, 2024 orders were intermediate procedural or evidentiary rulings, not final orders affecting substantive rights.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it challenged non-final orders, which are not 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 (Rymer); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(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.
Applicant did not demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice to justify removal.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Removal was denied because the petitioner failed to meet the high standard required for this extraordinary remedy.
From the decision · page 4Here, applicant did not demonstrate that irreparable harm will result if removal is not
granted. Thus, 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. Once the parties
proceed to trial, they will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and
submit evidence. The trial WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by
the parties and determine how best to proceed.