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 petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
The Appeals Board granted removal because the WCJ's order was issued without a hearing or notice, causing prejudice and irreparable harm to defendant.
From the decision · page 2Workers' 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); 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).)
Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151; Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572; Lab. Code, 5313
Due process requires a fair hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard.
The WCJ's order violated due process by granting the motion without a hearing or notice, thus removal was warranted.
From the decision · page 2All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due
process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A
fair hearing is "... one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant..." (Id. at p. 158.)
Lab. Code, 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473; Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753
A WCJ must make findings on all facts and state reasons for decisions based on admitted evidence supported by substantial evidence.
The WCJ failed to comply with these requirements by issuing the order without evidentiary record or findings, justifying removal.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]"
(Lab. Code, § 5313; see also, Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66
Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).)