Anheuser Busch; Cartis Claims Inc. Martin Rojas WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARTIN ROJAS, Applicant,vs.ANHEUSER BUSCH; CHARTIS CLAIMS INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ4665750 (LAO 0876369) OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant, in pro per1, seeks reconsideration of the Order taking the matter off calendar, but the brief text in the Petition for Reconsideration argues that applicant does not wish to proceed with the Compromise and Release Agreement that he signed because applicant contends and that unspecified items were added to the Compromise and Release Agreement after he signed it. Defendant filed an Answer. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, we will dismiss applicant’s petition because there is no order which is subject to reconsideration at this time. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) has not issued an order approving the Compromise and Release. The only order in existence at the time of applicant’s petition was an Order taking the matter off calendar. We note that reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900.) The WCJ’s Order taking the matter off calendar, does not constitute a final order 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 Workers’ Compensation Practice, Cal. CEB 4th Ed., June 2010, §§ 21.8 – 21.9, pp. 1678-1680.) A “final” order has been defined as one which 1 Applicant has filed this Petition for Reconsideration in pro per but is, in fact, represented by counsel who obtained the Compromise and Release settlement agreement on behalf of applicant. , 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; Safewa
