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. WCAB (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. WCAB (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
The WCJ's orders regarding admissibility of evidence and QME review were interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 4II.
A 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].)
Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, the following: injury arising out of and in the
course of employment, 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].)
Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers'
compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.
Lab. Code §§ 5708, 5709; Allison v. WCAB (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654
The WCJ and Appeals Board have broad discretion in evidentiary matters and are not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but must act to ascertain substantial rights and carry out justice.
The WCJ has flexibility to admit documents into evidence, but must provide a clear record and reasoning for each decision.
From the decision · page 9Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654, 663 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases
624].) We emphasize that in workers' compensation proceedings, the Labor Code makes explicit
that the WCJ and the Appeals Board have greater discretion with respect to evidentiary matters
than courts in civil proceedings, and not narrower discretion. Section 5708 mandates that we are
not "bound by the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but may make inquiry
in the manner, through oral testimony and records, which is best calculated to ascertain the
substantial rights of the parties and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." (Lab.
Code, § 5708.) Section 5709 specifically allows informality in our proceedings and ensures that
"admission into the record, and use as proof of any fact in dispute, of any evidence not admissible
under the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure" will not invalidate an order,
decision or award. (Lab. Code, § 5709.)
Hence, in reviewing the identified materials offered by defendant, the WCJ has significant
flexibility to admit documents into evidence. Nonetheless, it is also defendant's responsibility to
Lab. Code § 4062.3; Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803 (en banc)
Section 4062.3 governs information to be provided to a QME, including medical and nonmedical records relevant to the medical issue.
The WCJ must determine and explain which materials should be reviewed by the QME and identify them with particularity.
From the decision · page 10Section 4062.3 describes information to be provided to a QME and states in relevant part: