Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural orders are not final.
The November 12, 2024 order setting a status conference was an interlocutory procedural order and not a final order subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4Workers' 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)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
The petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, so removal was denied.
From the decision · page 4Further, removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board.
(Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cortez) (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71
Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kleemann) (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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).)
Lab. Code, § 5311; Code Civ. Proc., § 641; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960
A party may seek disqualification of a WCJ only on grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641 and Labor Code section 5311, supported by detailed facts under penalty of perjury.
The petition for disqualification did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification, so it was denied.
From the decision · page 8To the extent applicant once again requests disqualification of the WCJ, we deny it. 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)).