Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a 'final' order that determines a substantive right or liability or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits
Order directing EDD to file lien and defer collection is interlocutory procedural order, not final
From the decision · page 2A 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.3th 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. WCAB (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596
Removal granted only upon showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy
PWCJ Order issued without proper record or compliance with Hamilton requirements constitutes substantial prejudice
From the decision · page 32 [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;
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (en banc); Lab. Code, § 5313
WCJ decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record; WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record
Skeletal minutes and lack of summary of evidence violate record requirements
From the decision · page 4(1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].) “For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record.” ( Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476.)