ADJ3550890 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration vacated; Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petition for Removal denied

Petition for Reconsideration granted May 23, 2022; decision after reconsideration issued March 8, 2022; petition dismissed and removal denied November 14, 2024

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 8, 2022.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because the order rescinding the WCJ's decision was interlocutory and not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration; removal was denied as the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the Answer. Based on our review of the record, and our analysis in our March 8, 2022 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, we make no changes to our March 8, 2022 decision. We will vacate our May 23, 2022 Order Granting the Petition for Reconsideration, and dismiss the Petition as one seeking reconsideration as it seeks reconsideration of a non-final order. We will treat it as one seeking removal and deny the Petition.

The rules the panel named

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.

The order rescinding the WCJ's decision was interlocutory and not final, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 2A 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.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if the petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

Removal was denied because the petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 2Removal 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.,

ADJ3550890 · November 14, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

About this page