Stacee Barbato, vs. Fresno Heart Surgical Hospital, Administered By Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.,

is a case involving Stacee Barbato and Fresno Heart Surgical Hospital, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and removal as it was untimely and did not determine any substantive right or liability.

Fresno Heart Surgical Hospital, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Stacee Barbato, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASTACEE BARBATO,Applicant,vs.FRESNO HEART SURGICAL HOSPITAL, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.,Defendants.Case No. ADJ9724977(Fresno District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING 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, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and dismiss 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 (“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or d

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.