Arturo Jimenez, vs. Santa Ana Country Club; Alliance Resolution,

In this case, Arturo Jimenez filed a petition for reconsideration and removal with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board against Santa Ana Country Club and Alliance Resolution. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal, as the decision was an intermediate evidentiary issue and did not determine any substantive right or liability. Removal was denied as the petitioner did not demonstrate that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued.

Santa Ana Country Club; Alliance Resolution, Arturo Jimenez, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAARTURO JIMENEZ,Applicant,vs.SANTA ANA COUNTRY CLUB; ALLIANCE RESOLUTION,Defendants.Case No. ADJ8881091(Santa Ana District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, including the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of defendant’s arguments in the WCJ’s report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.            A petition for reconsideration may only be taken 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, 413]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661, 665]) 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, 650-651, 655-656].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 655] (“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ ”); Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180 (“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include , intermediate pr

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.