DEF EXPRESS and AIG, ISAIAS MAGANA, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAISAIAS MAGANA, Applicant,vs.DEF EXPRESS and AIG, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJS04141 (STK 0204453)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION DEF EXPRESS and AIG, FOR REMOVAL Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Order Denying Petition for Change of Venue issued November 12, 2008, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that applicant’s Petition for Change of Venue, filed October 31, 2008, was denied. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by failing to grant change of venue from the Stockton district office to the Fresno district office arguing that “nothing is being resolved” and that the WCJ “does not have time for this case…”. In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ set forth the bases for the denial of applicant’s Petition for Change of Venue. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth in the WCJ’s Report, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, because there is no order subject to reconsideration at this time, and deny applicant’s petition for removal. At the outset, we note that reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Labor Code section 5900.) An interlocutory procedural order, such as this order denying applicant’s Petition for Change of Venue, is not a final order within the meaning of Section 5900. An order, which does not dispose of the substantive rights and liabilities of those involved in a case, is not a final order. (2 California Workers’ Compensation Practice, Cal. CEB 4′ Ed., 2007, sections 21.8 – 21.9, pp. 1605-1607.) A “final” order has been defined as one which determines , any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; 65 Cal.Comp.
