Gonzalo Gonzalez vs. Lucio Family Enterprises, Inc., And Imperium Insurance Company, Adjusted By Risk Enterprise Management

Lucio Family Enterprises, Inc., and Imperium Insurance Company, adjusted by Risk Enterprise Management, were involved in a workers' compensation case in which Gonzalo Gonzalez, the applicant, alleged that he sustained an injury to the head while participating in a paintball activity. The case went to trial, and the parties provided points and authorities on December 17, 2012. A Finding and Order issued on February 12, 2013, which ordered the parties to do further discovery, specifically to obtain a medical report by way of AME or QME from an appropriate specialist. Gonzalez filed a timely and properly verified Petition for Reconsideration on March 11, 2013, which was denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board found that the Petition for Reconsider

Lucio Family Enterprises, Inc., and Imperium Insurance Company, adjusted by Risk Enterprise Management Gonzalo Gonzalez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGONZALO GONZALEZ, Applicant,vs.LUCIO FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC., and IMPERIUMINSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by RISKENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7820546 (Stockton District Office)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 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’ Camp. 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. 665]; see also, e.g., 2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, 4th ed., 2000), §§ 21.8, 21.9.) 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 2

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.