Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The Order Denying Petition for Change of Venue is an intermediate procedural order and not final, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed.
From the decision · page 2Nevertheless, 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
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
The Petitions for removal are denied because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
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 WCJs' analysis of the merits
of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJs' Reports, we will deny the Petitions as ones seeking
removal.
Lab. Code, 5311; Code Civ. Proc., 641
A party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641, including bias or fixed opinion.
The Petitions for disqualification are denied because the petitioner did not set forth sufficient facts to establish disqualification.
From the decision · page 3We also deny them to the extent they seek disqualification of the WCJ. To the extent the
Petitions contend that the WCJ should be disqualified, Labor Code section 5311 provides that a
party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any one or more of the grounds specified in Code of
Civil Procedure section 641. (Lab. Code, § 5311; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 641.) Among the
grounds for disqualification under section 641 are that the WCJ has "formed or expressed an
unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f)) or that the
WCJ has demonstrated "[t]he existence of a state of mind... evincing enmity against or bias
toward either party" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)).