ADJ16142394 · July 5, 2024

The orders at issue are interim procedural and/or discovery orders, not final orders determining any substantive right or threshold issue. Therefore, they are not subject to reconsideration.

From the decision · page 4Here, the Order Suspending and the April NIT are both interim procedural and/or discovery orders. Neither of these orders represent a final order finally determining any substantive right or liability of any party, nor finally determining any threshold issue basic to applicant's right to benefit. The Order Suspending neither approved nor disapproved the C&R, and the April NIT made no findings of fact or award of sanctions. Both orders set the issues presented for further discovery and further hearing, thereby ensuring due process for all parties involved.

Neither the Order Suspending nor the April NIT will cause harm or prejudice to any party; both orders ensure due process and set issues for further hearing.

From the decision · page 5We agree with the reasons set forth in the Report that neither the Order Suspending or the April NIT will cause harm or prejudice to any party, and therefore deny removal as to the April NIT. In addition, the Order Suspending will do no harm and cause no prejudice to any party as it was issued in compliance with the WCJ's statutory duty to review every settlement for fairness and adequacy:

The Order Suspending and the April NIT are interim procedural/discovery orders, not final orders determining substantive rights or threshold issues.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Only final orders are subject to reconsideration; thus, the petition for reconsideration must be dismissed.

From the decision · page 4Here, the Order Suspending and the April NIT are both interim procedural and/or discovery orders. Neither of these orders represent a final order finally determining any substantive right or liability of any party, nor finally determining any threshold issue basic to applicant's right to benefit. The Order Suspending neither approved nor disapproved the C&R, and the April NIT made no findings of fact or award of sanctions. Both orders set the issues presented for further discovery and further hearing, thereby ensuring due process for all parties involved.

Neither the Order Suspending nor the April NIT will cause harm or prejudice to any party; both orders set issues for further hearing and ensure due process.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Removal is only granted if there is substantial prejudice or irreparable harm; none was shown here.

From the decision · page 5We agree with the reasons set forth in the Report that neither the Order Suspending or the April NIT will cause harm or prejudice to any party, and therefore deny removal as to the April NIT. In addition, the Order Suspending will do no harm and cause no prejudice to any party as it was issued in compliance with the WCJ's statutory duty to review every settlement for fairness and adequacy:

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068

A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award that determines a substantive right or threshold issue.

The orders at issue are not final as they do not determine any substantive right or threshold issue.

From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) "An order, decision, or award of the WCAB or workers' compensation judge is final for purposes of a petition for reconsideration where it determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case." (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180 [260 Cal.Rptr. 76] quoting Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661, 665]; see also, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410, 413].) An order may also be "final" when it determines a "threshold" issue 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, 650-651, 655-656].)

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. WCAB (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. WCAB (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274

Removal is granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

No substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown; reconsideration remains available if a final adverse decision issues.

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, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, 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. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) In addition, 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).)