County Line Framing; Cambridge Integrated Services Amado Gatica WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAMADO GATICA, Applicant,vs.COUNTY LINE FRAMING; CAMBRIDGEINTEGRATED SERVICES, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ6429650ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING REMOVAL We have considered the allegations 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’ Camp. 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 determine 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 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 Bd. (1987) 52 Cal.Comp.Cases 399 (writ den.); Beck v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (
Menu
