Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462 (En Banc)
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 5Here, the order issued by the WCJ is a decision solely addressing discovery. The decision
contains no final order from which reconsideration may be sought, and thus we dismiss the petition
as one seeking reconsideration. Defendant is admonished that filing petitions for reconsideration
from non-final orders is not permissible and may be sanctionable. (See id.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
Removal was denied because defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 5We treat the petition as one seeking removal. Removal 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, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra;
Kleemann, supra.) A petitioner must also 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).)
Regents of University of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1530
Evidence Code statutes prohibiting disclosure of privileged materials apply to WCAB proceedings.
Defendant did not establish privilege at trial and waived the issue on appeal.
From the decision · page 6In Regents of University of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014) 226
Cal.App.4th 1530 [173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80] (Lappi) the court held that Evidence Code statutes
prohibiting disclosure of assertedly privileged materials for the purpose of determining their
related privilege claims apply to WCAB proceedings.