What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; order taking matter off calendar rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant petitioned for removal from an order taking the matter off calendar; WCJ recommended denial; Board grants removal and returns matter to trial level to create a record.
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 took the matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, violating due process and constituting irreparable harm; removal is proper and the matter is returned to trial level to create a record.
From the decision · page 2record or explaining the need for further development of the record and thus, the order violates the
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ issued an order taking the matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need for further development.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This violated the parties' right to due process and constituted irreparable harm, justifying removal and remand.
From the decision · page 2record or explaining the need for further development of the record and thus, the order violates 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)
Removal is granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to find that taking the matter off calendar without a record or explanation violated due process and constituted irreparable harm, justifying removal.
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
Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d), 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence and state the basis for the decision.
Cited as background for the requirement to create a record and explain the basis for decisions.
From the decision · page 2substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The WCJ took the matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, violating due process.
From the decision · page 2record or explaining the need for further development of the record and thus, the order violates the
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.