THE HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT JOANNE GARCIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOANNE GARCIA, Applicant,vs.THE HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Permissibly Self-Insured, AdministeredBy HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2311576 (POM 0297447)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report. and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the petition. Reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900.) Interlocutory procedural orders are not final orders 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 Worker’s Compensation Practice, (4th ed. Cal. CEB 2000,) Sections 21.8-21.9, pages 1273- 1275.) 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.Cases 650; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410, 413; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661.) Accordingly, workers’ compensation administrative law judges’ (WCJ) pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, setting or not setting for trial, and/or venue are interlocutory orders which do not determine the substantive rights of the parties, and therefore are not final orders subject to reconsideration. (Jablonski v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 52 Cal.Comp.Cases 399, writ denied; Beck v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 44 Cal.Comp.Cases 190, w
