State of California, California Highway Patrol, Legally Uninsured; State Compensation Insurance Fund Jeffrey Brumm, Deceased Julie Brumm; Erin Nicole Brumm; Emily Rae Brumm; Wende Iriart; Megan Alexandra Brumm WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJEFFREY BRUMM, Deceased JULIE BRUMM; ERIN NICOLE DRUMM;EMILY RAE BRUMM; WENDE IRIART; MEGAN ALEXANDRA BRUMM, Applicants, vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7490993 (Riverside District Office) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition 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 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 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 [43Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 665]; see also, e.g., 2 California Workers’ Compensation Practice (4th ed Cal CEB 2000) §§ 21.8, 21.9.) Pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar , issues – such as the order(s) here – are non-final interlocutor
