ADJ17943105 · July 20, 2026

The petitions challenged interlocutory orders denying change of venue, which are not final orders subject to reconsideration, and the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The petitions were therefore dismissed or denied accordingly.

From the decision · page 1Applicant filed two Petitions for Reconsideration, one on May 6, 2026 and one on June 8, 2026, apparently in response to two separate Orders Denying Petition for Change of Venue issued on April 9, 2026 and on May 7, 2026 by the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ). Applicant asserts in both Petitions that he disagrees with the decisions of the WCJ at the Santa Rosa District Office and that he wants his case transferred to the Oakland District Office. We have not received an answer from defendant. The PWCJ filed a Report and Recommendation (Report) recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration be dismissed, or in the alternative if treated as a Petition for Removal, it be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition and the contents of the PWCJ’s Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsiderations, treat the Petitions as ones for removal and deny both Petitions. BACKGROUND We will briefly review the relevant facts. Applicant sustained injury to his left ankle while employed by defendant as a production worker on June 7, 2023.

The April 9, 2026 and May 7, 2026 Orders denying change of venue were interlocutory procedural orders, not final orders.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Because petitions for reconsideration may only be taken from final orders, the petitions were dismissed as they challenged non-final interlocutory orders.

From the decision · page 4A 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. (Id. 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.

Petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Because removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring such a showing, the petitions for removal were denied.

From the decision · page 4Code 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).) Here, based upon the PWCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, 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 petitioner. Thus, we deny the Petitions as ones for Removal.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900, 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068

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 April 9, 2026 and May 7, 2026 Orders denying change of venue were interlocutory and not final, so petitions for reconsideration were dismissed.

From the decision · page 4A 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. (Id. 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.

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 petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal petitions were denied.

From the decision · page 4Code 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).) Here, based upon the PWCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, 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 petitioner. Thus, we deny the Petitions as ones for Removal.