Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5900(a)
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a final order, decision, or award.
The petition was dismissed because the WCJ's order continuing the trial was interlocutory and not a final order.
From the decision · page 1Labor Code section 5900(a) states "[a]ny person aggrieved directly or indirectly by any
final order, decision, or award... may petition the appeals board for reconsideration...," and 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
Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171
A final order determines any substantive right or liability or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits.
The WCJ's order continuing the trial did not determine any substantive right or liability and was interlocutory.
From the decision · page 2"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. 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.
Labor Code section 3715(d)
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence.
The petition contesting the finding of illegal uninsured status must be considered at trial with evidence admitted and a record created.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code section 3715(d) provides that if an employer is aggrieved by a finding by the
Director that it was prima facie illegally uninsured, it may appeal that finding by filing a petition
at the Appeals Board. Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in
the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476
(Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by
substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970)
3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1
Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand
the basis for the WCJ's decision and the WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts
involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton, supra, at p. 476; Blackledge v.
Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-622.)