Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900, 5901, 5950; Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39
A petition for writ of review may only be sought from a final order, decision, or award of the Appeals Board.
The order taking the matter off calendar was an interim procedural order and not a final order subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2A petition for writ of review may only be sought from a final order, decision, or award of
the Appeals Board. (Lab. Code, § 5900, 5901, 5950; Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249, 1255 ("Hikida"); Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000)
81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074 ("Maranian"); Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180
("Rymer"); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d
528, 534§ 535 ("Safeway"); Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45.) Interim orders are not final orders because they do not
finally determine questions of the parties' substantive rights or liabilities, nor do they finally
determine a threshold issue basic to the employee's right to benefits. (Maranian, supra, 81
Cal.App.4th at p. 1075; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at 1180; Kramer, supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at
45; see Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. ("Gaona") (2016) 5
Cal.App.5th 658, 660.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is inadequate.
The Appeals Board granted removal to issue sanctions but did not make a final decision on the merits of the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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];
Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, 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.) 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, § 10955(a).)
Labor Code section 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10421
The Appeals Board may impose sanctions for bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, including willful failure to comply with obligations, improper motive, or indisputably without merit contentions.
The Appeals Board found defendant's petition may have been filed in bad faith with misrepresentations and improper motives, justifying sanctions.