LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; SEDGWICK CMS ELLEN BRASWELL WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAELLEN BRASWELL, Applicant,vs.LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; SEDGWICK CMS, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ3514782 (VNO 0144032)ADJ918354 (VNO 0144033)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND DENYING PETITIONS FOR REMOVAL On August 6, 2012, the WCJ issued a Finding and Order Re: Second QME Panel (Unrepresented Case). Ellen Braswell, applicant in propria persona, filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal of the Finding and Order. On August 17, 2012, the WCJ issued an Order Denying Applicant’s Petition (to strike the report of QME Weingarten). Ellen Braswell, applicant in propria persona, filed a separate Petition for Reconsideration and Removal of the Order Denying Applicant’s Petition (to strike the report of QME Weingarten). In reference to reconsideration, we have considered the allegations of both Petitions 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 C
