ADJ15637590 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration dismissed; petition for removal denied

Petition for reconsideration of an interlocutory order granting change of venue

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 order granting change of venue is interlocutory, not final, so the petition for reconsideration is improper and must be dismissed; removal is denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of an Order Granting Change of Venue ("Order"), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 8, 2022, wherein the WCJ granted defendant's petition to change venue.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The order granting change of venue is an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order.

The rules the panel named

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

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903

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

The order granting change of venue is interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration is improper.

From the decision · page 1We received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations in the Petition, the answer, and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons provided below, the Petition seeks reconsideration of a non-final order and will be dismissed. We will treat the petition as one for removal, and we will deny removal. 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.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

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

Petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, so removal was denied.

From the decision · page 2Here, the Order granting a change of venue is an interlocutory decision and is subject to the removal standard rather than reconsideration pursuant to the discussion above. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) Removal 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.

ADJ15637590 · May 24, 2022

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

About this page