What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied; petition for disqualification dismissed.
Petition for removal and petition for disqualification filed by defendant; WCJ issued order setting matter for trial on March 11, 2026; WCJ filed Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal recommending denial of removal; WCAB panel decision on June 23, 2026.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and found reconsideration an adequate remedy; the petition for disqualification was dismissed for failure to comply with timeliness and specificity requirements.
From the decision · page 1Removal 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
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant's petition for removal did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant removal was not warranted under the regulatory standard requiring such a showing.
From the decision · page 2that 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.
Defendant's petition for disqualification was a single sentence alleging bias and did not comply with the timeliness and specificity requirements of WCAB Rule 10960.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Board dismissed the petition for disqualification on this basis, finding it skeletal and untimely.
From the decision · page 4Here, defendant's petition to disqualify the WCJ consists of a single sentence alleging bias. To the extent that defendant seeks disqualification, we consider defendant's petition skeletal. As defendant has not complied with WCAB Rule 10960, we will dismiss the petition for disqualification.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10960; Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395
Petitions for disqualification must be timely filed within 10 days after notice of hearing or knowledge of grounds and must state facts constituting grounds for disqualification.
The Board dismissed the petition for disqualification as untimely and skeletal, lacking facts to support the claim of bias.
From the decision · page 3Next, petitions for disqualification must be timely filed: "If the workers' compensation judge assigned to hear the matter and the grounds for disqualification are known, the petition for disqualification shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; it requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The Board applied this standard to deny removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be adequate.
From the decision · page 1Removal 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
Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10515; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence; summary judgment is not permitted in workers' compensation cases.
The Board reminded defendant that summary judgment is not permitted and decisions must be based on evidence, rejecting defendant's request for summary judgment on sanctions.
From the decision · page 2Decisions 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.)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.