ADJ16696159 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal dismissed as untimely; removal denied on merits if considered

Petition for removal from order setting matter for trial filed by applicant, found untimely and dismissed by WCAB panel

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 35 days after the scheduling order, exceeding the 20-day limit under WCAB Rule 10955. On the merits, removal was denied as the applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. 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, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Petition for removal was filed 35 days after the scheduling order, exceeding the 20-day limit under WCAB Rule 10955

Favours Defendant prevailed

This untimeliness required dismissal of the petition

From the decision · page 2As to the timeliness of the petition, pursuant to WCAB Rule 10955, "At any time within 20 days after the service of the order or decision, or of the occurrence of the action in issue, any party may petition for removal[.]" Per the court's record a notice of hearing issued on May 16, 2025. The Petition for Removal was filed on June 20, 2025, which was 35 days later. It appears applicant may be basing the timing of the petition upon when the minutes of hearing were formally served, however, the occurrence of scheduling the trial occurred on May 16. Although the minutes repeat the fact that trial was scheduled, this does not extend the time for removal or create an independent cause of action.

Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without such a showing, removal is not granted

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. 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, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the

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 remedy (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a))

The petition was dismissed as untimely and denied on merits as petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. 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, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the

ADJ16696159 · September 23, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page