What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal dismissed for untimeliness and lack of grounds
Petition for Removal filed by applicant after prior dismissal and reconsideration denial
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold February 18, 2025.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition was untimely and failed to state grounds for relief, so it was dismissed.
From the decision · page 2We note that we are unable to discern what applicant's actual contentions are. As explained further below, to the extent that she seeks review of our February 18, 2025 Decision, such a petition would be seeking review of a non-final order and would be untimely. If she seeks review of the orders taking her case off calendar and continuing the matter, based upon the PWCJ's analysis of the merits of applicant's arguments in the attached Report from the PWCJ, we will dismiss the petition.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The February 18, 2025 WCAB decision was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, the petition was dismissed as untimely.
From the decision · page 2We first consider the petition in response to our February 18, 2025 Decision. 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.
The petition for removal was filed on April 25, 2025, more than 25 days after the February 18, 2025 decision was served.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The petition was untimely under the regulatory time limits and was dismissed.
From the decision · page 3Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(b), 10940(a).) The petition in this matter was filed on April 25, 2025. This was more than 25 days after the service of our February 18, 2025 Decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. If the petition had been timely, we would have denied it on the merits for the reasons stated in our February 18, 2025 Decision.
Applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the orders taking ADJ3117080 off calendar and continuing ADJ11896735.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such showing, removal is not warranted and the petition was dismissed on the merits.
From the decision · page 6The undersigned does not believe that applicant has established significant prejudice or irreparable harm with regard to the order taking ADJ3117080 off calendar or the order continuing ADJ11896735 to allow time for applicant to complete the pre-trial conference statement.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award.
The decision was not final as it resolved only intermediate procedural or evidentiary issues, so the petition was dismissed.
From the decision · page 2We first consider the petition in response to our February 18, 2025 Decision. 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.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10600, 10605(a)(1), 10615(b), 10940(a)
A petition for removal must be filed within 25 days of service of the non-final decision and received by the WCAB within that time.
The petition was filed more than 25 days after service and was untimely, so it was dismissed.
From the decision · page 245 ["[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, our 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. We also note that there are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for removal from a "non-final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), 10955(a).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for removal must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.