ADJ13812292 · March 27, 2026

The Appeals Board treated the discovery order and evidence admission rulings as interlocutory and subject to removal standard, but denied removal because defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 4Although the decision contains findings that are final, the defendant challenges 1) the PWCJ's Discovery Order #1 denying defendant's petition for an order requiring applicant to execute a social security release, and 2) the PWCJ's Rulings and Order #9 denying defendant's Exhibit F, the Doctor's First Report, into evidence. These are interlocutory finding/orders subject to the removal standard rather than reconsideration pursuant to the discussion above. (See Gaona, supra.)

The Appeals Board found the PWCJ's decision to be a final order subject to reconsideration and denied the petition because defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Rulings and Orders Admitting Evidence and Joint Findings of Fact, Discovery Order, and Opinion on Decision issued by the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) on November 26, 2025. The PWCJ found, in relevant part, that on August 24, 2019, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker, applicant sustained a specific industrial injury to his left hip, cervical spine, thoracic spine, left shoulder, left elbow, and left knee and claims to have sustained injury to his upper back, right knee, and right shoulder. Applicant was further found to have sustained a specific industrial injury to his lower back and abdomen on January 2, 2020, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker. The PWCJ issued a ruling and order to not receive into evidence, the Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness (Doctor's First Report) by Kayvon Yadidi, D.O. dated June 22, 2018. The PWCJ further issued Discovery Orders denying defendant's petition for a discovery order requiring applicant to execute a social security release and granting in part, defendant's petition for a discovery order authorizing a further deposition of the applicant only to the extent of applicant's activities of daily living and their interactions as well as changes in applicant's physical condition since the May 22, 2023 deposition.

Defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the denial of removal of interlocutory discovery and evidence rulings.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This justified denial of removal and denial of the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 5Here, based upon our review and the PWCJ's analysis of the merits of defendant's arguments in the Report, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.

The PWCJ's decision included findings on threshold issues such as employment relationship and specific industrial injuries on August 24, 2019, and January 2, 2020.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This made the PWCJ's decision a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

From the decision · page 4Here, the PWCJ's decision includes findings regarding threshold issues as to the existence of an employment relationship between applicant and defendant, that applicant sustained a specific industrial injury to his left hip, cervical spine, thoracic spine, left shoulder, left elbow, and left knee on August 24, 2019, and that applicant sustained another specific industrial injury to his lower back and abdomen on January 2, 2020. Accordingly, the PWCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.

Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness dated June 22, 2018, was excluded from evidence by the PWCJ and the exclusion was upheld by the Appeals Board.

The PWCJ issued a ruling and order to not receive into evidence the Doctor's First Report by Kayvon Yadidi, D.O. dated June 22, 2018, and the Appeals Board denied reconsideration of that ruling.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Rulings and Orders Admitting Evidence and Joint Findings of Fact, Discovery Order, and Opinion on Decision issued by the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) on November 26, 2025. The PWCJ found, in relevant part, that on August 24, 2019, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker, applicant sustained a specific industrial injury to his left hip, cervical spine, thoracic spine, left shoulder, left elbow, and left knee and claims to have sustained injury to his upper back, right knee, and right shoulder. Applicant was further found to have sustained a specific industrial injury to his lower back and abdomen on January 2, 2020, while employed by defendant as a maintenance worker. The PWCJ issued a ruling and order to not receive into evidence, the Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness (Doctor's First Report) by Kayvon Yadidi, D.O. dated June 22, 2018. The PWCJ further issued Discovery Orders denying defendant's petition for a discovery order requiring applicant to execute a social security release and granting in part, defendant's petition for a discovery order authorizing a further deposition of the applicant only to the extent of applicant's activities of daily living and their interactions as well as changes in applicant's physical condition since the May 22, 2023 deposition.

Labor Code sections 5900, 5902, 5903

A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.

The Appeals Board found the PWCJ's decision to be a final order subject to reconsideration.

From the decision · page 3II. 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. (Maranian, supra, 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,

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.

The Appeals Board denied removal because defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 5Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, 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).)

The PWCJ's analysis and the Appeals Board's review of the merits of defendant's arguments in the Report.

From the decision · page 5Here, based upon our review and the PWCJ's analysis of the merits of defendant's arguments in the Report, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.