What the panel ordered
Denied defendant's third Petition for Removal of the WCJ's April 13, 2021 Order Setting Case for Mandatory Settlement Conference After Removal Reg 10955(d).
Defendant filed three Petitions for Removal challenging various WCJ orders; the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the third Petition; the WCAB panel reviewed and decided on the third Petition for Removal.
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 WCAB found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the Petition for Removal.
From the decision · page 2With respect to defendant's third Petition, we will deny the Petition. 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.