Back to Search

Joanne Irving vs. Sacramento City Unified District; California Insurance Guarantee Associates

In this case, Joanne Irving petitioned for reconsideration and removal from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board dismissed the petition to the extent it sought reconsideration and denied it to the extent it sought removal. The Board found that the decision did not determine any substantive right or liability and did not determine a threshold issue, and thus was not a "final" decision. The Board also found that the petitioner did not demonstrate that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued.

Filed On: January 14, 2020
Court: California, Sacramento
Case No. ADJ1611171

Sacramento City Unified District; California Insurance Guarantee Associates Joanne Irving WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOANNE IRVING, Applicant,vs.SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATES, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ1611171ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal and the contents of the repon of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report, which we adopt and incorporate, 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 only be taken 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.Cascs 410, 413]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cascs 661, 665]) 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, 650-651, 655-656].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075 (65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 655] (“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions. , are not ‘final’ “); Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180 (“(t]hc term (‘

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!