RUSSAKS CURED AND SMOKED PRODUCTS; TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC. MIRNA ROBLES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMIRNA ROBLES, Applicant,vs. RUSSAKS CURED AND SMOKED PRODUCTS; TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants.Case No. ADJ9237152(Van Nuys District Office)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING PETITION FORREMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal, and we have reviewed the record in this matter.With respect to the Petition for Reconsideration, such a petition 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 Cal.Comp.Cases 661, 665].) 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 anysubstantive 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 1180; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kramer), supra, 82 Cal.App.3d 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 665]; see also, e.g., 2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar, June 2013 Update) Reconsideration, §§ 21.8-21.9, pp. 1678-1680.) Pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues are non-final interlocutory orders that do not determine any substantive right of the parties. Accordingly, the petition, to the extent it seeks reconsideration, must be dismissed. (E.g., Elwood v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (2001) 66 , Cal.Comp.Cases 272 (writ den.); Jablonski v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 52 Cal.Comp.Cases 399 (writ d
Menu
