What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied. The matter will proceed to trial.
Defendant petitioned for removal of an order setting the matter for trial, arguing a prior dismissal order precluded trial. The WCAB reviewed the petition, answer, and WCJ report.
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.
Removal is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. Defendant did not meet this burden.
From the decision · page 1We received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny removal. 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
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to show that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was denied, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure meant the requirements for granting removal were not met, so the petition was denied.
From the decision · page 2ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, 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.
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); Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. The petitioner must show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
Applied to deny removal because defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 1We received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny removal. 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
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.