MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP INC ERIC SANICO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAERIC SANICO, Applicant,vs.MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTEMANAGEMENT; SPECIAL DISTRICT RISKMANAGEMENT AUTHORITY; YORK RISKSERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ6793193(Salinas District Office)ORDER DISMISSINGPETITION FORRECONSIDERATIONAND DENYING REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. A petitior1 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) 81Cal.App.4th1068, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 655]; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d 1180; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kramer), supra, 82 Cal.App.3d 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 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. Appeals Bd. (1987) 52 Cal.Comp.Cases 399 (writ den.); Beck
