Rosa Gamez vs. Full Steam Staffing And Esis

In this case, Rosa Gamez filed a petition for reconsideration and removal with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board against Full Steam Staffing and ESIS. The Board dismissed the petition to the extent it sought reconsideration and denied it to the extent it sought removal. The Board found that the petition was not a "final" order, decision, or award and that removal was an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Board. The Board also found that the petitioner did not demonstrate that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued.

Full Steam Staffing and ESIS Rosa Gamez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROSA GAMEZ, Applicant,vs.FULL STEAM STAFFING and ESIS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ10868608 (Stockton District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.            A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that either “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]) or determines a “threshold” issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [ 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 650-651, 655-656].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 655] (“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ “); Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180 (“the term ‘final’ does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”); Kaiser Foundation Hos

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.