Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Sanchez: An Interlocutory Order Requires the Removal Standard, Not Ordinary Reconsideration

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 16, 2026

Jose Sanchez sought removal or reconsideration of a procedural ruling before the claim had reached a final determination. The Appeals Board used the filing to restate the distinct standards governing final and interlocutory orders.

Reconsideration ordinarily follows a final decision

A final order determines a substantive right or liability or resolves a threshold issue fundamental to the claim. Intermediate procedural, discovery, evidentiary, venue, and trial-setting rulings generally do not qualify.

Removal is an extraordinary alternative

When an order is interlocutory, a petitioner must show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and explain why later reconsideration after a final decision would not provide an adequate remedy.

Disagreement with case management is not enough

The Board adopted the trial judge’s analysis and found the required extraordinary harm absent. The opinion did not convert the challenged procedural ruling into a final adjudication of benefits.

The petition was denied

The Board denied the filing whether treated as seeking reconsideration or removal. Practitioners should classify the challenged order correctly before selecting the petition and should build the harm showing with concrete facts.

Key takeaways

• Determine whether the challenged order is final or interlocutory.
• Use removal only with a specific showing of irreparable harm.
• Explain why later reconsideration would be inadequate.
• Do not let an interlocutory petition replace development of the merits record.