California Department of Justice; State Compensation Insurance Fund; County of Sacramento; Tristar Insurance John Harris WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA JOHN HARRIS, Applicant,vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; TRISTAR INSURANCE, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7735457ADJ6720971ADJ7722714ADJ7336302ADJ6841161(Sacramento District Office)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration1 of this Appeals Board’s Order Denying Petition for Removal of November 5, 2012. We will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration for two reasons. First, the petition is not taken from a final order because the Board’s November 5, 2012 decision did not determine a substantive issue such as entitlement to benefits. (2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, June 2012 Update) Reconsideration, §§ 21.8-21.9, pp. 1678-1680, citing Lab. Code §§ 5900, 5902.) Second, the petition is successive in nature. In its November 5, 2012 decision, the Board denied removal, agreeing with the WCJ that his denial of applicant’s request to have his right knee further evaluated by an orthopedist did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843, WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.) The Board once having rejected applicant’s contentions on this issue, he cannot properly raise them again by changing the name of his petition from “removal” to “reconsideration.” The name change notwithstanding, the petition is , successive in nature and will be dismissed for that additional reason. (2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, June 2012 Update) Reconsideration, § 21.63, pp. 1731-1732.)For the foregoing reasons,IT IS ORDERED that said Petition for Reconsideration is DISMISSED.WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD________________________________________RONNIE G. C
