Roger Nor vs. Burger King; Gab Robins Burbank

This case is about Burger King and Gab Robins Burbank appealing a decision to vacate an order of dismissal for Roger Nor's workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal, noting that the order vacating the dismissal did not constitute a final order and that the petitioner had failed to establish that the order would result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board returned the matter to the trial level for further review.

Burger King; Gab Robins Burbank Roger Nor WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROGER NOR, Applicant,vs.BURGER KING; GAB ROBINS BURBANK, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3825592OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Defendant seeks reconsideration “or in the alternative petition for removal” following the Order Vacating Order of Dismissal, issued June 8, 2010, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) “set aside and vacated” the prior Order of Dismissal, dated January 26, 2009.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by vacating the prior Order of Dismissal arguing that there was good cause to dismiss applicant’s claim for failure to prosecute the matter, that applicant “failed to provide good cause for objecting to defendant’s September 3, 2008 petition to dismiss for failure to prosecute”, and that applicant has not provided good cause to either reopen the case or set aside the dismissal.            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, and deny defendant’s Petition for Removal.            At the outset, we note that reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Labor Code section 5900.) The WCJ’s Order, vacating the prior Order dismissing applicant’s case for failure to prosecute, 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 2009. sections 21.8-21.9, pp. 1678-1680.) A “final” order has been defined as one which determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case. (Mar anion v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 CaI.App.4,h 1068; 65 Cal.Comp

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.