Barrett Business Services, Permissibly Self-Insured and Self-Administered Abelardo Perez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAABELARDO PEREZ, Applicant,vs.BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured and Self-Administered, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7476764ADJ7479092ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING REMOVAL We have considered the obligations of the Petition and we have reviewed the record in this matter. A petition for reconsideration is properly taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one “which 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].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered to be “final” orders because they do not any substantive question. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 655]; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kramer), supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at p. 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 665]; see also, e.g., 2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, 4th ed., 2000), §§21.8, 21.9.) Pre- trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues – such as the order(s) here – are non-final interlocutory orders that do not determine any substantive right of the parties. Accordingly, the Petition, to the extent it seeks reconsideration, must be dismissed. (E.g., Elwood v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 272 (writ den.); Jablonski v. Workers’ Comp. , Appeals B
