What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; order taking matter off calendar rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued by the WCJ on September 10, 2024
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 WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was issued without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, violating due process and causing irreparable harm, thus removal was proper.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on September 10, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ issued order taking matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining need for further development
Favours Applicant prevailed
This violated the parties' right to due process and constituted irreparable harm, justifying removal
From the decision · page 2ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered the trial off calendar for further development of the record. The trial judge issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for further development of the record and thus, the order violates the parties right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
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; granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate
Removal granted because the WCJ's order violated due process by not creating a record or explaining the need for further development, causing irreparable harm
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the issue of additional panels is ripe for adjudication. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the September 10, 2024 order taking the matter off calendar and return this matter to the trial level to create a record. 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 that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ issued order taking matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining need for further development
From the decision · page 2ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered the trial off calendar for further development of the record. The trial judge issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for further development of the record and thus, the order violates the parties right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case.
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.