Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award, which determines a substantive right or liability or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits. Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
The February 17, 2023 order was an intermediate procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration was not proper.
From the decision · page 1A 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
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10605(a)(1), 10955(a), 10600, 10615(b), 10940(a)
A petition for removal must be filed within 25 days of service of a non-final decision, and must be received by the WCAB within that time.
The petition was filed more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision, so it was untimely.
From the decision · page 2To the extent applicant requested removal, there are 25 days allowed within which to file
a petition for removal from a "non-final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in
California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), 10955(a).) This time limit is extended to the
next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
§ 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for removal must be filed with (i.e., received by) the
WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is
insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(b), 10940(a).)
Lab. Code, § 5311; Code Civ. Proc., § 641; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960; Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395
A petition for disqualification must be supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating facts establishing grounds for disqualification, and must be filed within 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds are known.
The petition for disqualification was not supported by sufficient facts and was untimely.
From the decision · page 2Finally, we address to the request for disqualification. Labor Code section 5311 provides
that a party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any one or more of the grounds specified in Code
of Civil Procedure section 641. (Lab. Code, § 5311; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 641.) Among the
grounds for disqualification under section 641 are that the WCJ has "formed or expressed an
unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f)) or that the
WCJ has demonstrated "[t]he existence of a state of mind... evincing enmity against or bias
toward either party" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)).