ADJ16953860 · February 20, 2024

The December 15, 2023 WCJ Order Denying Request for Continuance was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was improper; removal was granted as an extraordinary remedy under Labor Code section 5310.

From the decision · page 1On December 20, 2023, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Petition for Removal and a First Amended Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Petition for Removal contending, in essence, that the December 15, 2023 Order Denying applicant's Request for Continuance issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) was a violation of due process. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks reconsideration and we will grant removal on motion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) pursuant to Labor Code section 5310.

The December 15, 2023 WCJ Order Denying Request for Continuance was interlocutory and not a final order.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Because a petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, reconsideration was improper and the petition was dismissed.

From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's December 15, 2023 Order Denying applicant's Request for a Continuance is not a final order. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.

Labor Code section 5310; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10843(a); Castro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 61 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460; Swedlow, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Smith) (1985) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 476

The Appeals Board has discretionary power under Labor Code section 5310 to remove proceedings to itself as an extraordinary remedy.

Removal was granted on motion of the Appeals Board as an extraordinary remedy under Labor Code section 5310.

From the decision · page 2The Appeals Board is authorized under Labor Code section 5310 to remove to itself, as it deems necessary in any workers' compensation matter, "the proceedings in any claim." This power of removal is discretionary and is generally employed only as an extraordinary remedy. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843, subd. (a); Castro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 61 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460 (writ den.); Swedlow, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Smith) (1985) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 476 (writ den.).)

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; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.

The WCJ's December 15, 2023 Order Denying Request for Continuance was interlocutory and not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

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.