Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Pointer); Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Kramer); Maranian v. WCAB
A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award that determines substantive rights or threshold issues; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final.
The order taking the matter off calendar was not a final order, so reconsideration is not available.
From the decision · page 31075 ["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. 45 ["[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 April 23, 2025 Minute Order taking this case off calenda is solely an intermediate
procedural order. It does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a
threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision. Therefore, the request for reconsideration
will be dismissed.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. WCAB; Kleemann v. WCAB
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applicant did not show substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or inadequacy of reconsideration; removal denied.
From the decision · page 3III.
Removal 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
substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of
the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
A petition for disqualification must be supported by a declaration or affidavit stating facts under penalty of perjury; mere conclusions or subjective perceptions of bias are insufficient.
Applicant did not file a proper petition or provide sufficient factual basis; request for disqualification denied.
From the decision · page 4County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1034; Robbins v.
Sharp Healthcare (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1291, 1310-1311 (Significant Panel Decision).)
Moreover, WCAB Rule 10960 provides that when the WCJ and "the grounds for
disqualification" are known, a petition for disqualification "shall be filed not more than 10 days
after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known."
Here, the request for disqualification does not set forth a declaration or affidavit providing
facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to
Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or
(g). Accordingly, the request for disqualification is denied.