Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
Removal is granted only if petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applicant demonstrated significant prejudice and irreparable harm, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, so removal was granted.
From the decision · page 7IV.
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
significant 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, and for the reasons discussed below, the decision of the PWCJ is not supported by
an adequate record with respect to the findings relating to the applicant's request to change venue.
Accordingly, we conclude that applicant has shown that significant prejudice and irreparable harm
will result, and that applicant will not have an adequate remedy upon reconsideration. Thus, we
grant the Petition as one for removal.
Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; case law
A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
The order taking the matter off calendar was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 6Now, we will consider the applicant's Petition.
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 ["interim orders,
which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions,