ADJ12910087 — California WCAB decision

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seeks reconsideration of the Board's September 2, 2025 decision which granted applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the matter to trial level for further proceedings.

Read the official decision →

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

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 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).)

ADJ12910087 · December 4, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

About this page