What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as the WCJ's denial of testimony motion was an interlocutory procedural/evidentiary decision, not a final order; dismissal affirmed by WCAB panel decision dated March 9, 2026.
Petition for reconsideration filed by applicant pro per, challenging WCJ's denial of motion to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Glenn Cohen at trial; WCJ issued Order Vacating Submission and Report recommending dismissal; case transmitted to Appeals Board on January 8, 2026; WCAB timely acted on petition within 60 days.
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 WCJ's denial of the motion to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Cohen was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues, thus the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as not final.
From the decision · page 3A 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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's denial of applicant's motion to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Cohen was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or threshold issues.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because the decision was not final, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as improper.
From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ's denial on the record of applicant's motion at the December 16, 2025 trial, seeking testimony of PQME Dr. Cohen, solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition for reconsideration will be dismissed.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Applicant sought to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Cohen at trial, but WCJ denied motion as Dr. Cohen was not present and not subpoenaed.
The denial of testimony was a procedural evidentiary ruling, not a substantive medical opinion on the claim.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration related to the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) actions at the December 16, 2025 trial. As relevant here, the WCJ denied applicant's motion to allow testimony of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME), Glenn Cohen, M.D., on the grounds that Dr. Cohen was not present in court and there was no indication he had been subpoenaed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909
Appeals Board must act on petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of case to Appeals Board; petition deemed denied if not acted upon within that time.
From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
WCAB Rule 10961
WCAB Rule 10961
Jurisdiction remains with district office for 15 days after filing petition for reconsideration; WCJ may rescind or amend order within that time to avoid Appeals Board action.
From the decision · page 3In dismissing the Petition in the instant case, we remind the WCJ that WCAB Rule 10961 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961) provides that jurisdiction remains with the district office for 15 days after the timely filing of a petition for reconsideration and sets forth three actions that a WCJ may take in response: (a) The WCJ may prepare a report and transfer jurisdiction to the Appeals
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's denial of applicant's motion to allow testimony of PQME Dr. Cohen at trial because Dr. Cohen was not present and not subpoenaed
From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration related to the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) actions at the December 16, 2025 trial. As relevant here, the WCJ denied applicant's motion to allow testimony of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME), Glenn Cohen, M.D., on the grounds that Dr. Cohen was not present in court and there was no indication he had been subpoenaed.
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.