Automatic Specialty Company; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Efrain Chavez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEFRAIN CHAVEZ, Applicant,vs.AUTOMATIC SPECIALTY COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUALINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ885319 (LAO 0800836),ADJ854299 (LAO 0811623), ADJ1334694 (LAO 0811624)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND DENYING REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petitions 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’ 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 determineany 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. App
