What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as it challenged a non-final order; Petition for Removal denied for failure to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney seeking trial on attorney's fees issue; WCJ took matter off calendar and deferred 5710 issue; petition challenged non-final order
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 petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it challenged a non-final order taking the matter off calendar, which is not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903, and 5909, and related regulations. The petition for removal was denied because the applicant failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
From the decision · page 1OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The order taking the matter off calendar is a non-final order not subject to reconsideration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it challenged a non-final order, which is not appealable under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903.
From the decision · page 4A 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, 260 Cal. Rptr. 76; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [163 Cal. Rptr. 750, 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 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 65 Cal. Comp.
Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice from the order taking the matter off calendar.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The petition for removal was denied because the applicant did not meet the high standard required to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a 'final' order, decision, or award.
The petition challenged a non-final order taking the matter off calendar, which is not subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4A 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, 260 Cal. Rptr. 76; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [163 Cal. Rptr. 750, 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 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 65 Cal. Comp.
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.
The decision was issued timely within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board on September 12, 2024.
From the decision · page 3Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, a7 10843(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The petition for removal was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 5III. Removal 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, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner
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.