What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order, Opinion on Decision issued by the WCJ on April 7, 2021
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 petition challenged interlocutory evidentiary rulings, not the threshold injury AOE/COE finding, so removal standard applied and petition denied for lack of significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, applicant is only challenging the WCJ's decision regarding the admissibility of certain exhibits and witness testimony. This is an interlocutory decision regarding evidence. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's decision included a finding of injury AOE/COE to the left knee, which is a threshold issue and makes the decision final.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the WCJ's decision a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal, limiting the petition's scope.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding of injury AOE/COE to the left knee. Injury AOE/COE is a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
Applicant only challenged the WCJ's decision regarding the admissibility of certain exhibits and witness testimony, an interlocutory evidentiary issue.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because the challenge was only to interlocutory evidentiary rulings, the removal standard applied and the petition was denied for lack of significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, applicant is only challenging the WCJ's decision regarding the admissibility of certain exhibits and witness testimony. This is an interlocutory decision regarding evidence. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5904
Failure to timely petition for reconsideration of a final decision bars later challenge to the propriety of the decision before the WCAB or court of appeal.
The decision is final because it includes a threshold injury AOE/COE finding, so the petition for reconsideration must be timely.
From the decision · page 1If a decision includes resolution of a "threshold" issue, then it is a "final" decision, whether or not all issues are resolved or there is an ultimate decision on the right to benefits. (Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 783, 784, fn. 2 (Appeals Board en banc).) Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, the following: injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE), jurisdiction, the existence of an employment relationship and statute of limitations issues. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658, 662 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) Failure to timely petition for reconsideration of a final decision bars later challenge to the propriety of the decision before the WCAB or court of appeal. (See Lab. Code, § 5904.) Alternatively, non-final decisions may later be challenged by a petition for reconsideration once a final decision issues.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
Petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm, so removal was denied.
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., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant challenged the admissibility of certain exhibits and witness testimony, which was an interlocutory evidentiary issue.
From the decision · page 2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, applicant is only challenging the WCJ's decision regarding the admissibility of certain exhibits and witness testimony. This is an interlocutory decision regarding evidence. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
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.