Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
Interlocutory minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions are not final orders subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4A.
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.
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.) Such interlocutory
decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial
setting, venue, or similar issues.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm is shown and reconsideration is inadequate.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from interlocutory orders; reconsideration is adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 5B.
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. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, 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).)
Here, based on our review of the record as well as for the reasons stated in the WCJ's
report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is
denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds
to a final decision adverse to petitioner. The minutes of hearing setting trial and the NOI to impose
sanctions do not create substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as the applicant will be allowed
to present a case at trial. Accordingly, we will also deny the Petition to the extent it seeks removal.
Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f), (g)
Disqualification requires detailed facts showing unqualified opinion or bias by the WCJ.
No detailed facts established disqualification; WCJ denied bias and willingness to determine higher fee if warranted.
From the decision · page 10On this record, and in the absence of detailed facts establishing disqualification we are
unable to find that the WCJ expressed an "unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits" nor that
the WCJ has shown "enmity against or bias toward either party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 641((f), (g)).