Acevedo Contracting; Meadowbrook Insurance, Eliseo Perez, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACase No. ADJ9268483ELISEO PEREZ, (Santa Ana District Office)Applicant,vs.ACEVEDO CONTRACTING; MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE,Defendants.OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal. A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that either “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 proc
