HUSTLER CASINO Permissibly Self-Insured; CORVEL CORPORATION as Third Party Administrator ANDRE JONES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAANDRE JONES, Applicant,vs.HUSTLER CASINO Permissibly Self-Insured; CORVEL CORPORATIONas Third Party Administrator, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7282822(Pomona District Office)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND DENYING REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, 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 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 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 California Workers’ Compensation Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, 4th Ed. 2000) §§ 21.8, 21.9.) Pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial settling, 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
