J.L. Bray And Sons, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Frank H. Mcconnell, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAFRANK H. MCCONNELL,Applicant,vs.J.L. BRAY AND SONS, INC.; ST ATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,Defendants.Case No. ADJ7081998(Stockton District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION The Appeals Board previously granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the December 13, 2016 Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration to allow time to review this case. This is our Decision After Reconsideration. In the December 13, 2016 Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, the Appeals Board rescinded the workers’ compensation judge’s September 29, 2016 Findings, A ward and Order and returned the matter to the trial level for further development of the record. Defendant contends that the Appeals Board ignored the mandate of Labor Code section 5502( d)(3) that discovery close at the mandatory settlement conference. For the reasons discussed below, we will vacate the March 6, 2017 Order Granting Reconsideration and dismiss defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration. Labor Code § 5900(a) allows reconsideration only of a “final order, decision, or award.” (Emphasis added.) (See also Labor Code§§ 5901-5903) 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 29, 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. Worker
Menu
