Kuehne & Nagel, Inc.; Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Joel Ramirez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOEL RAMIREZ, Applicant,vs.KUEHNE & NAGEL, INC.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTYINSURANCE, Defendant.Case No. ADJ6893931OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Applicant seeks removal and reconsideration of this Appeals Board’s “Opinion and Orders Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration, Granting Petition for Removal and Decision After Removal” of April 20. 2010, in which we dismissed defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration, granted defendant’s Petition for Removal, and we changed venue from the Anaheim District Office of the WCAB to the San Bernardino District Office.Applicant contends, in substance, that the Board erred in granting removal and changing venue because defendant failed to comply with WCAB Rule 10410. (8 Cal. Code Regs. §10410. WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.) Defendant filed an answer. We begin by noting that although applicant’s petition herein is styled a “Petition for Removal,” the petition, in substance, requests reconsideration of our prior decision of April 20, 2010. In merely changing venue, however, that decision did not affect applicant’s substantive rights and so it is not a final order properly challenged by petition for reconsideration. (2 California Workers Compensation Practice 4th (C.E.B.) (June 2009 Update) §§21.8-21.9.) Therefore, we will dismiss applicant’s petition for reconsideration. , In addition, even if we treat the petition for reconsideration as a petition for removal in response to the non-final order changing venue, we will deny removal because applicant has not shown that the change of venue from Anaheim to San Bernardino will result in ineparablc harm or significant prejudice. (See 8 Cal. Code Regs. §10843.) Applicant’s complaint that defendant failed to comply with WCAB Rule 10410 was addressed in our pno
