TARGET STORES permissibly self-insured SEDGWICK CMS PAMELA ZEILSTRA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPAMELA ZEILSTRA, Applicant,vs.TARGET STORES, permissibly self-insured; SEDGWICK CMS, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685)ADJ3521523 (WCK 0322592)ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition. As noted in the WCJ’s Report, the petition is untimely. In addition, as explained below, the petition is not taken from a final order. Reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900.) Interlocutory procedural orders are not final orders within the meaning of section 5900. (2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (4th ed Cal CEB 2000) §§ 21.8-21.9, pp. 1273-1274.) A “final” order has been defined as one “which 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]; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 528 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410, 413]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661].) Accordingly, WCJs’ pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, setting or not setting for trial, and/or venue are interlocutory orders, which do not determine the substantive rights of the parties, and therefore are not final orders subject to reconsideration. (Jablonski v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 52 Cal.Comp.Cases 399 (writ den.); Beck v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 44 Cal.Comp.Cases 190 (writ den.).) , We have accepted and considered petitio
