GRASS VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, permissibly self-insured, administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES NICHOLAS ESPEDAL WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIANICHOLAS ESPEDAL, Applicant,vs.GRASS VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, permissibly self-insured, administered byYORK INSURANCE SERVICES, Defendants.Case No(s). ADJ7078203ADJ7078204(Sacramento District Office)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND DENYING REMOVAL 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 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 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 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. 6651; see also, e.g., 2 California Workers’ Compensation Practice (4th ed Cal CEB 2000) §§ 21.8, 21.9.) Pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues – such as the order here – 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. Appea
Menu
