News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

KATRINA SENTIERI vs. PET SMART, Permissibly Self-Insured Retention Policy, Thereafter, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

PET SMART, Permissibly Self-Insured Retention Policy, Thereafter, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES KATRINA SENTIERI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKATRINA SENTIERI, Applicant,vs.PET SMART, Permissibly Self-Insured Retention Policy, Thereafter, ACEAMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Administered By SEDGWICKCLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants.Case No. ADJ8167149(Salinas 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’ 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. 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 – 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 ext

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *