Haas Automation; Travelers Property Casualty Company of America Greg Franks WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIAGREG FRANKS, Applicantvs.HAAS AUTOMATION; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, DefendantsAdjudication Numbers: ADJ12249741 Santa Barbara Satellite OfficeOPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition for Removal or in the alternative Reconsideration of the Order Unsubmitting Matter for Decision Pursuant to 8CCR10961 and Order Appointing Regular Physician(s) Pursuant to Labor Code §5701 (“Order”) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 30, 2020 and the contents of the WCJ’s Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, 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 properly be taken only 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]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) 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].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evi
Menu
