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 be taken only from a final order, decision, or award; a final order determines a substantive right or threshold issue, not intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions.
Applied to determine that the Minute Order taking the matter off calendar is not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3Workers' 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
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.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to deny removal because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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, 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits
of the petitioner's arguments, 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.