What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied for lack of jurisdiction to review interlocutory order.
Defendant seeks reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Orders issued by the arbitrator on July 26, 2021, which reserved jurisdiction on applicant's permanent disability level pending further evidence.
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 Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders such as the arbitrator's order to develop the record, which is not a final order under Labor Code section 3201.5(a)(1).
From the decision · page 4is not subject to review by the Appeals Board. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to address defendant's contentions regarding this order.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The arbitrator's order to develop the record is an interlocutory order, not a final order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because interlocutory orders are not reviewable by the Appeals Board under Lab. Code, 3201.5(a)(1), the petition for reconsideration was denied for lack of jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 4is not subject to review by the Appeals Board. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to address defendant's contentions regarding this order.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 3201.5(a)(1)
A party in a carve-out case may seek reconsideration only of a final order, decision, or award under Lab. Code, 3201.5(a)(1).
The arbitrator's order to develop the record is interlocutory and not subject to review by the Appeals Board.
Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171
Final orders include those determining substantive rights or threshold issues fundamental to the claim for benefits.
The arbitrator's order to develop the record is interlocutory and not subject to review by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 3A party in a carve-out case may seek reconsideration from the Appeals Board of a "final order, decision, or award." (Lab. Code, § 3201.5(a)(1), emphasis added).) 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.
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.