ADJ17263528 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal dismissed by Appeals Board so WCJ can treat it as petition to set aside joinder and set for hearing

Petition for removal from order of joinder filed by defendant SCIF, recommended for denial by WCJ, now dismissed by Appeals Board to be treated as petition to set aside joinder and set for hearing

Read the official decision →

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 Appeals Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy and that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied and the petition was dismissed to be treated as a petition to set aside joinder for hearing by the WCJ.

From the decision · page 1Defendant, SCIF, has filed a petition for removal from the order of joinder issued on October 15, 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.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5803

The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction over all of its orders, decisions, and awards under Labor Code section 5803

The Appeals Board treated the petition for removal as a petition to set aside joinder under its continuing jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 2To the extent that defendant argues that the proof of service is incorrect or that joinder is otherwise improper, and pursuant to Labor Code section 5803, the Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction over all of its "orders, decisions, and awards." Accordingly, we treat defendant's Petition for Removal as a petition to set aside the joinder. The WCJ may then set a hearing on such a petition and create a record. The WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine whether defendant's joinder is appropriate.

Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; removal granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be inadequate

The Appeals Board applied this standard to deny removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

From the decision · page 1Removal 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

ADJ17263528 · October 7, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

About this page