What the panel ordered
Petition for disqualification dismissed as moot due to WCJ's voluntary recusal; petition for removal granted; order setting matter for trial rescinded; matter returned to presiding judge for further proceedings.
Petition for disqualification and petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued by the WCJ on April 23, 2026, filed by applicant.
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 did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 regarding the petition to seal records, justifying removal. The WCJ voluntarily recused, making disqualification moot. Removal was granted to address procedural errors before trial.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered that applicant's petition to seal be heard together at trial amongst applicant's petition for 132a. The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10813). Thus, removal is proper in this case.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 regarding the petition to seal records.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural error justified granting removal to ensure proper handling before trial.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered that applicant's petition to seal be heard together at trial amongst applicant's petition for 132a. The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10813). Thus, removal is proper in this case.
The WCJ voluntarily recused from further proceedings.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This made the petition for disqualification moot and supported dismissal.
From the decision · page 1We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that the petition for disqualification be dismissed as moot because the WCJ exercised the option of voluntary recusal from further proceedings in this matter.
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 granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if not granted, and reconsideration is inadequate.
The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 regarding the petition to seal records, justifying removal.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ ordered that applicant's petition to seal be heard together at trial amongst applicant's petition for 132a. The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10813). Thus, removal is proper in this case.
WCAB Rule 10813 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10813(d))
Documents may be ordered sealed on motion if good cause exists, with notice and opportunity to be heard, and documents lodged conditionally under seal pending order.
The WCJ did not follow this rule in handling the petition to seal records, leading to removal.
From the decision · page 2WCAB Rule 10813 states, in pertinent part: (d) Documents may be ordered sealed on the motion of the presiding workers' compensation judge or the Appeals Board if the injured employee is unrepresented or other good cause exists for sealing the documents. All parties shall be given notice and opportunity to be heard. After the issuance of a notice of intention to seal documents, the documents shall be lodged conditionally under seal pending the issuance of an order sealing the documents or an order finding no good cause to seal the documents.
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.