Grupe Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board9/15/2005
ent rule seeks to prevent costly piecemeal dispositions and multiple reviews, which burden the courts and impede the judicial process. (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 741, fn. 9.)
However, the final judgment rule, ubiquitous in civil appeals, does not hold sway in the arena of WCAB appeals. Section 5950, which governs WCAB appeals, states: "Any person affected by an order, decision, or award of the appeals board may, within the time limit specified in this section, apply to the Supreme Court or to the court of appeal for the appellate district in which he resides, for a writ of review, for the purpose of inquiring into and determining the lawfulness of the original order, decision, or award or of the order, decision, or award following reconsideration. The application for writ of review must be made within 45 days after a petition for reconsideration is denied, or, if a petition is granted or reconsideration is had on the appeals board's own motion, within 45 days after the filing of the order, decision, or award following reconsideration."
In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528 (Safeway), the appellate court considered what constitutes a final order for the purposes of appeal in workers' compensation cases. The Safeway court looked first to the finality required in order to bring a motion for reconsideration before the WCAB. Section 5900, subdivision (a) gives any person "aggrieved directly or indirectly by any final order, decision, or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge under any provision contained in [the statute]" the right to "petition the appeals board for reconsideration in respect to any matters determined or covered by the final order, decision, or award . . . ."
The Safeway court reviewed cases construing finality for the purposes of a motion for reconsideration and found a "final order" for purposes of section 5900 includes any order that settles, for purposes of the compensation proceeding, an issue critical to the claim for benefits, whether or not it resolves all the issues in the proceeding or represents a decision on the right to benefits. (Safeway, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at pp. 534-535; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45.)
In Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Maranian), the court explained which orders were considered final: "`For example, an interim order of the Board or a WCJ that presents a threshold issue is deemed to be final, and may properly be the subject of a petition for reconsideration. A threshold issue is an issue that is basic to the establishment of the employee's rights to benefits, such as the territorial jurisdiction of the Board, the existence of the employment relationship, and statute of limitations issues. Likewise, the term "final order" includes orders dismissing a party, rejecting an affirmative defense, granting commutation, terminating liability, and determining whether the employer has provided compensation coverage.' [Citations.] [ ] It follows that interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' for purposes of section 5900." (Id. at p. 1075; Safeway, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at p. 534.)
Drawing on section 5900, the court in Safeway concluded that the standard for determining what decisions are subject to reconsideration under section 5900 and the standard for determining what decisions are reviewable under section 5950 should be similar. According to the Safeway court, " hether severance and preliminary determination of threshold issues will ser
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|