Sunbridge Healthcare; American Home Assurance Mary Stonecipher WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARY STONECIPHER, Applicant,vs.SUNBRIDGE HEALTHCARE; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, Defendant/s).Case No. EUR 37792OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order issued May 1, 2007 wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) awarded applicant further treatment to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of her industrial injury to her low back and abdominal hernia. The WCJ ordered that “all issues raised at trial October 24, 2006, arc deferred with jurisdiction reserved.” Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by “unnecessarily deferring} the issues of permanent disability and apportionment” arguing that there is “no reason for delaying a Piling on the issues of permanent disability and apportionment per the clear opinions of Dr. Sommer and Dr. Waldman.” Defendant acknowledged that the WCJ “has ruled the applicant needs future treatment, and this defendant accepts that ruling.” Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, we will dismiss defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration because there is no final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, treating defendant’s petition as a petition for removal, we will deny removal because defendant has not shown an irreparable harm or substantial prejudice will result from the WCJ’s decision. We note that the petition for reconsideration may be made only from a final order, decision or award. (Labor Code sections 5900, 5900.) A procedural order, such as the WCJ’s order , deferring issues is not a final order and thus not subject to review by a petition for reconsideration. Addressing defendant’s petition as a petition for removal, we will deny removal. Contrary to California Code of Regulations, t
