What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petition for Removal denied.
Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Removal filed by defendant after Joint Order Suspending Action; WCJ report recommends dismissal and denial respectively.
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 Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim procedural order, not a final order, and thus not subject to reconsideration. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, we dismiss defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim order and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Also based on this review, and for reasons set forth below and based on the Report, which we adopt and incorporate herein we deny defendant's Petition for Removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim procedural order, not a final order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because only final orders are subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a).
From the decision · page 2Here, the Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim procedural and/or discovery order. The Order does not 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 neither approved nor disapproved the C&R, rather, the order set the issues presented for further hearing, thereby ensuring due process for all parties involved.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
The Joint Order Suspending Action is not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1A 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. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders,
Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg. (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 549 (Appeals Bd. en banc)
Filing petitions for reconsideration on interlocutory orders may be considered frivolous and filed for purposes of delay in violation of section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10421.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as the order was interlocutory and not final.
From the decision · page 2The recent en banc decision issued by the Appeals Board in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg. (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 549 (Appeals Bd. en banc), affirmed that filing petitions for reconsideration on interlocutory orders may be considered "frivolous and filed for the purposes of delay in violation of section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10421." (Id, at pp. 555-556.) Given that the language related to final orders and interlocutory orders as it relates to the filing of reconsideration "has been used in dozens, if not hundreds of panel decisions issued by the Appeals Board...," we can see no reason for defendant's filing of a petition for reconsideration in this matter. (See Ledezma (Alfredo) v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 462, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim procedural order, not a final order, and does not decide substantive rights or threshold issues.
From the decision · page 2Here, the Joint Order Suspending Action is an interim procedural and/or discovery order. The Order does not 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 neither approved nor disapproved the C&R, rather, the order set the issues presented for further hearing, thereby ensuring due process for all parties involved.
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.