What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as the decision was not final; petition for removal denied.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Board's September 2, 2025 decision which granted applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the matter to trial level for further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 2, 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 Board found the decision under reconsideration was not final because it did not determine any substantive right or liability, thus the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature.
From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration is only properly taken from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) "An order, decision, or award of the WCAB or workers' compensation judge is final for purposes of a petition for reconsideration where it deter- mines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case." (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180; see Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410].) In other words, an order is final when it determines a "threshold" issue 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. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180.)
The Board denied removal because defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the rescission of the decision and return to trial level.
From the decision · page 4Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) In addition, 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, § 10843(a).)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The decision under reconsideration was not a final order because it did not determine any substantive right or liability, but rather returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This meant the petition for reconsideration was premature and had to be dismissed.
From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration is only properly taken from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) "An order, decision, or award of the WCAB or workers' compensation judge is final for purposes of a petition for reconsideration where it deter- mines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case." (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180; see Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410].) In other words, an order is final when it determines a "threshold" issue 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. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180.)
Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the rescission of the decision and return to trial level.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant removal was not warranted and the petition for removal was denied.
From the decision · page 4Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) In addition, 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, § 10843(a).)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900, 5902, 5903, 5909
A petition for reconsideration is only properly taken from a final order, decision, or award.
The Board found the decision under reconsideration was not final because it did not determine any substantive right or liability, thus the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature.
From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration is only properly taken from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) "An order, decision, or award of the WCAB or workers' compensation judge is final for purposes of a petition for reconsideration where it deter- mines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case." (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180; see Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410].) In other words, an order is final when it determines a "threshold" issue 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. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The Board denied removal because defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the rescission of the decision and return to trial level.
From the decision · page 4Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) In addition, 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, § 10843(a).)
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.