THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured LAWRENCE REICHELT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALAWRENCE REICHELT, Applicant,vs.THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant.Case No. ADJ2895646 (VNO 0380163)ORDERS DISMISSING PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION, ANDDENYING AND DISMISSING PETITIONS FOR REMOVAL Applicant has filed two Petitions herein against the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ’s) Findings and Order and Notice of Intention to Appoint Medical Examiner Pursuant to Labor Code section 5701. The first Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Petition for Removal was filed August 20, 2012, and the second Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Petition for Removal was filed September 17, 2012. In reference to the Petition filed August 20, 2012, 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 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 CaLComp.Cases 661, 6651.) 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 [43 , Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 665]; see also, e.g., 2 California Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, 4th ed., 2000), sections 21.8, 21.
