Ruben Fuentes vs. IHSS County Of Kern

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Ruben Fuentes against IHSS County of Kern. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal, as the petition was an intermediate procedural order that did not determine any substantive right or liability and did not determine a threshold issue. Removal was denied as the petitioner did not show that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and did not demonstrate that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued.

IHSS County of Kern Ruben Fuentes WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIARUBEN FUENTES, Applicantvs.IHSS COUNTY OF KERN, DefendantsAdjudication Numbers: ADJ13701186, ADJ13701188 Bakersfield District OfficeOPINION AND ORDERS 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 the petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s report, we will dismiss the Petition as one seeking reconsideration and deny it as one seeking removal.            A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only 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]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) 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].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ ”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate , procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate pr

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.