Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a 'final' order, decision, or award.
The WCJ's finding on timeliness of utilization review is a final order as it is a threshold jurisdictional issue.
From the decision · page 3I.
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision,
or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) 1 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.
Labor Code section 4610(k)
Utilization review decision to modify or deny a treatment recommendation remains effective for 12 months from the date of the decision.
Supports that utilization review timeliness is a final order if decided at Expedited Trial.
From the decision · page 345 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not
include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not
limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues.
Here, the defendant's answer does not challenge the WCJ's finding regarding timeliness
of the utilization review of the February 14, 2020 RFA; utilization review is a jurisdictional issue
and therefore is a final order if decided at the Expedited Trial. Additionally, pursuant to Labor
Code section 4610(k), because "[a] utilization review decision to modify or deny a treatment
recommendation shall remain effective for 12 months from the date of the decision...", an order
by the WCJ regarding utilization review in this context would also be considered final.
Labor Code section 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc)
WCJ must make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and refer to evidence in the opinion on decision.
The WCJ's decision must be based on substantial evidence and clearly designate the evidence forming the basis of the decision.
From the decision · page 4II.
The statutory and regulatory duties of a WCJ include the issuance of a decision that
complies with Labor Code section 5313. An adequate and complete record is necessary to
understand the basis for the WCJ's decision and the WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon
all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation
(2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc)2
(Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with
the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating
the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.) The purpose of this
requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the
basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp.