METROPOLITAN PROVISIONS;ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, ARNIE RAGLAND, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAARNIE RAGLAND, Applicant,vs.METROPOLITAN PROVISIONS; ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant (s).Case No.: ADJ4265715 (POM 0251859)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING REMOVAL Applicant, representing himself, seeks reconsideration of the July 6, 2009 Rejection of his June 24, 2009 Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR), in which applicant sought the assistance of the Appeals Board to enforce the June 7, 2008 and December 30, 2008 Determinations of the Rehabilitation Unit (RU) allowing applicant vocational ‘rehabilitation services and benefits. Applicant’s underlying claim involved his May 6, 2000 back injury, which resulted in 36 percent permanent disability. In his Petition for Reconsideration, applicant contends that on July 6, 2009, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board erroneously rejected his DOR, filed June 24, 2009. In that DOR, applicant sought a hearing on the Determinations of the RU dated July 7, 2008 and December 30, 2008. Applicant argues that the two orders were final and non-appealed before the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 took effect. Applicant argues that the Rehabilitation Orders were final before the statute was repealed and should be “vested.” Defendant did not file an Answer. We have considered the allegations of applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the record, including the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated herein, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration and deny removal. , Initially, we note that reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code §§ 5900, subd. (a); 5902.) Interlocutory procedural orders are not final orders within the meaning of Labor Code section 5900. A “f
Menu
