Melanie Helton, an individual; Troy Helton, an individual, doing business as Helton Hay & Feed Brayden Boisseranc WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABRAYDEN BOISSERANC, Applicant,vs.MELANIE HELTON, an individual; TROY HELTON, an individual, doing business as HELTON HAY & FEED, Defendants.Case No. ADJ9869506OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition seeks reconsideration of a non-final order and will be dismissed. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that cither “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)) or determines a “threshold” issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers ‘ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 650-651, 655-656).) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 655) (“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ ”); Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180 (“[t)he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders’’); Kaiser Foundation , Hospi
Menu
