Margaret Bell vs. CHP Reconsideration Dismissed Removal Denied April 20 2026

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARGARET BELL, Applicant vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants Adjudication Number: ADJ15904734 Sacramento District Office OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Applicant, in pro per, has filed a Petition for Reconsideration from the "Order Denying Petition" and "Order Deferring Action" both issued on January 30, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied applicant's request for a judgment based upon the pleadings and deferred applicant's request to exclude certain evidence at an upcoming trial. Applicant contends that a report should be excluded because it was not properly served and that an award should issue based upon the arguments contained in applicant's pleadings. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we treat the petition as seeking removal and deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration, treat the petition as seeking removal and deny removal.

DISCUSSION

Former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board. (b) (1) When a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board, the trial judge shall provide notice to the parties of the case and the appeals board. (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), service of the accompanying report, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5900, shall constitute providing notice. (§ 5909.) Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board." Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 19, 2026, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, April 20, 2026. This decision is issued by or on April 20, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the Petition as required by section 5909(a). Section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides notice to the Appeals Board. Thus, the requirement in subdivision (1) ensures that the parties are notified of the accurate date for the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on a petition. Section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall be notice of transmission. According to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the WCJ, the Report was served on February 19, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 19, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board 2

occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on February 19, 2026.

As stated in our en banc decision: 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, 260 Cal. Rptr. 76; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534-535 [163 Cal. Rptr. 750, 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 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 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 procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. (Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462, 475 (En Banc).) Here, the orders issued by the WCJ, in essence, deferred the issues raised by applicant to be decided at trial. The orders are not final, and thus, to the extent that applicant seeks reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed and we will treat the petition as seeking removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.

Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70

Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate 3

that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner. Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.) Here, once the parties proceed to trial, they will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence. Specifically, as part of that process, the parties will have an opportunity to raise the issue of whether evidence should be excluded based upon the allegation of improper service and whether an award should issue based upon the current medical evidence. The trial WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine how best to proceed. We make no judgment at this time as to the merits of any issue raised since without a formal record available to review, we have no ability to make this determination. We would also remind applicant that unlike other areas of civil law, in workers' compensation: "Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Accordingly, whenever a dispute arises, and absent agreement of the parties, the WCJ must conduct a trial and create a record to support any order that issues. Accordingly, we deny removal.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Reconsideration from the Order Denying Petition and Order Deferring Action issued on January 30, 2026, by the WCJ is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Removal from the Order Denying Petition and Order Deferring Action issued on January 30, 2026, by the WCJ is DENIED. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD /s/ KATHERINE WILLIAMS DODD, COMMISSIONER I CONCUR, /s/ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR /s/ JOSÉ H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA April 20, 2026 SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD. MARGARET BELL CARELON WAUKESHA SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES EDL/mt

I certify that I affixed the official seal of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to this original decision on this date. o.o