ADJ2513477 · September 8, 2026

The PWCJ’s June 22, 2026 Minute Order taking the matter off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was improper and dismissed.

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; 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, are not ‘final’”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p.

The PWCJ’s June 22, 2026 Minute Order taking the matter off calendar was not a final order but an interlocutory procedural order.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Because the order was not final, the petition for reconsideration was improper and dismissed.

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; 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, are not ‘final’”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.

The PWCJ’s June 22, 2026 Minute Order was not a final order as it resolved only an interlocutory procedural issue.

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; 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, are not ‘final’”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p.

Applicant did not present any request for treatment or documentation of denial of treatment at hearing

From the decision · page 5As stated by the PWCJ, at hearing, applicant did not present any issue pertaining to the award of open medical treatment for her back: there was no request for treatment nor documentation of denial of treatment. Since the only action taking the case off calendar is not a final order, there cannot be any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant. If applicant has a justiciable issue, she should file a new declaration of readiness to proceed to a hearing (DOR). 5 A DOR must indicate the issue(s) in dispute and, in this case, where the issue pertains to medical treatment, the DOR should be accompanied by all relevant medical reports and all letters from the insurance company about the issue(s) in dispute. However, having been declared a vexatious litigant, applicant is subject to the pre-filing procedures of Rule 10430. Accordingly, even treating applicant’s petition as one seeking removal, we deny removal.