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; 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; 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.
The WCJ's decision was an interlocutory procedural order and thus not final, leading to dismissal of the petition for reconsideration.
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. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not
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 and reconsideration is inadequate.
The WCAB granted removal because the applicant showed substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was inadequate.
From the decision · page 5To the extent that the Petition addresses the WCJ's discovery order, we will 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, 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 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.) 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).)
Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254
Contractual interpretation aims to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties; clear and explicit language governs.
The WCAB interpreted the stipulation based on the plain language and intent of the parties.
From the decision · page 5The dispute at bar involves a stipulation between the parties. A written stipulation is subject
to the general rules of contract enforcement and interpretation. (County of San Joaquin v. Workers'
Compensation Appeals Bd. (Sepulveda) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1184 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases
193]; Maggio v. Windward Capital Management Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1214 [96 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 168]; Burbank Studios v. Workers' Co. Appeals Bd. (Yount) (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929,
935 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 832].) The California Supreme Court has stated: "The fundamental goal
of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. (Civ. Code,
§ 1636.) If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs. (Civ. Code, § 1638.) (Bank of the
West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1264 [10 Cal.Rptr. 2d 538].)
California Constitution article I section 1 protects privacy rights including medical records.
The WCAB recognized applicant's constitutional right to privacy in medical records relevant to the claim.
From the decision · page 6We are also mindful that notwithstanding the filing of a claim for workers' compensation
benefits, applicant maintains a right to privacy. The California Constitution provides that, "All
people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying
and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and
obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." (Cal. Const. art. I, § 1.) California's constitutional right
to privacy "extends to...medical records." (E.g., John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177,
1198 [45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316, 137 P.3d 153] (John B.); see also, e.g., Hill v. National Collegiate
Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 41 [26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834, 865 P.2d 633] (Hill).)