ADJ20209443 · January 15, 2026

The petition was dismissed because the order was non-final and the petition was untimely under the amended Labor Code section 5909, which requires the Appeals Board to act within 60 days of case transmission. The case was transmitted on November 17, 2025, and the decision was issued on January 15, 2026, within the 60-day period, but the order was procedural and not final, making the petition improper.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the October 10, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the F&O, the WCJ found that Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel number 7776039 was properly and validly served by fax on applicant by defendant.

The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on November 17, 2025, and the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act expired on January 16, 2026.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This established the deadline for the Appeals Board to act on the petition for reconsideration, which was met by issuing the decision on January 15, 2026.

From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on November 17, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is January 16, 2026. This decision is issued by or on January 16, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).

The WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural order that did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Because the order was not final, the petition for reconsideration was improper and subject to dismissal.

From the decision · page 3II. 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].) 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.

Service of the WCJ's Report and Recommendation by fax was valid under WCAB Rule 10625(b)(4) as an alternative method equivalent to or more expeditious than first class mail.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the validity of service and the procedural correctness of the WCJ's order.

From the decision · page 345 ["[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 WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition for reconsideration will be dismissed. Applicant's attorney is reminded that when the decision solely concerns a non-final order, a petition for removal is appropriate, and not a petition for reconsideration. Even if we were to treat the petition as one for removal, we would have denied it based on the analysis in the WCJ's Report and considering WCAB Rule 10625(b)(4), which provides that a document may be served using "[a]n alternative method that will effect service that is equivalent to or more expeditious than first class mail." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(4).) Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration.

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon by the Appeals Board within 60 days of case transmission to be timely; otherwise, it is deemed denied.

The case was transmitted on November 17, 2025, and the decision was issued on January 15, 2026, within the 60-day period, so the petition was timely acted upon.

From the decision · page 1I. Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Labor Code sections 5900, 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 only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary orders are not final.

The WCJ's order was procedural and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue, so it was not final and the petition was dismissed.

From the decision · page 3II. 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].) 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.

WCAB Rule 10625(b)(4)

A document may be served using an alternative method equivalent to or more expeditious than first class mail.

The WCJ's report was served by fax, which is an alternative method equivalent to or more expeditious than first class mail, supporting the validity of service.

From the decision · page 345 ["[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 WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition for reconsideration will be dismissed. Applicant's attorney is reminded that when the decision solely concerns a non-final order, a petition for removal is appropriate, and not a petition for reconsideration. Even if we were to treat the petition as one for removal, we would have denied it based on the analysis in the WCJ's Report and considering WCAB Rule 10625(b)(4), which provides that a document may be served using "[a]n alternative method that will effect service that is equivalent to or more expeditious than first class mail." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(4).) Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration.