CP manufacturing; Zenith Insurance Alvaro , Carrillo WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIAALVARO CARRILLO, Applicant, vs. CP MANUFACTURING; ZENITH INSURANCE, PETITION FOR REMOVAL Defendant(Case No. ADJ7174342OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S DENYING DEFENDANT’SDefendant seeks reconsideration, or, in the alternative, removal of the May 28, 2010 Order Denying Change of Venue. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in denying its petition to change venue, arguing that the injury occurred in San Diego and all of the witnesses are located in San Diego. Defendant also contends that it timely objected to venue in Los Angeles upon receipt of the ADJ number. Applicant filed an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration/ Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal and change venue to San Diego. For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss defendant’s petition for reconsiderationand deny defendant’s petition for removal. Initially, we note that reconsideration may only be sought from a “final order, decision or award”. (Lab. Code, § 5900.) A final order, decision, or award is one that determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v.Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Pointer) (1980) 10427 Cal.App.3d 528 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410].) , Here, the Order Denying Change of Venue is not a final order, as it does not determine anysubstantive right or liability of the parties. Rather, it is merely a procedural order. Because the Order Denying Change of Venue is not a final order from which reconsideration may properly besought, we will dismiss defendant’s petition. Appeals Board rule 10410 provides that: ” Pursuant to Labor Code section 5501.5(c), anyemployer or insurance carri
