What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied
Petition for removal from order vacating trial and setting mandatory settlement conference filed by applicant
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 Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and held reconsideration would be an adequate remedy; the WCJ had discretion to continue the trial due to lack of exhibits and no abuse of discretion was shown.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's counsel filed multiple petitions for removal causing delay and possible frivolous filings
Favours Defendant prevailed
This delay was caused by applicant's own filings and weighed against granting removal.
From the decision · page 2This matter was set for trial, and the trial date has now been vacated due to applicant's counsel filing multiple petitions for removal. Any harm that exists in this case through delay is presently caused by applicant's own filings, which could be construed as frivolous.
No party filed exhibits prior to the expedited hearing, justifying the trial continuance
Favours Defendant prevailed
The lack of exhibits supported the WCJ's discretion to continue the trial and denied removal.
From the decision · page 2Furthermore, our review of the record appears to confirm what is written in the minutes of hearing, in that no party properly filed exhibits in this matter prior to the expedited hearing. Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10620: "Any document that a party proposes to offer into evidence at a trial shall be filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board at least 20 days prior to the trial unless otherwise ordered by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board." (Cal. Comp. Cases, tit. 8, § 10620.) To the extent that no party had filed any exhibits for the trial judge to review prior to the selected trial date, it would appear that the trial judge was well within their discretion to continue the matter.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
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 and requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if not granted
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be adequate.
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, 5700
The hearing on the application may be adjourned in the discretion of the appeals board or the workers' compensation judge
The WCJ had discretion to continue the trial due to no exhibits filed and no abuse of discretion was shown.
From the decision · page 2Next, contrary to applicant's assertion, can we find no Labor Code provision that endows a party with the unilateral right to proceed to trial upon the filing of a declaration of readiness (DOR). To the contrary, the Labor Code is quite clear that the WCJ and the Appeals Board have discretion when setting a matter for trial: "The hearing on the application may be adjourned from time to time and from place to place in the discretion of the appeals board or the workers' compensation judge holding the hearing." (Lab. Code, § 5700.) There may be other cases where a WCJ abuses their discretion in continuing matters, but no abuse of discretion was shown here.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's counsel filed multiple petitions for removal causing delay and possible frivolous filings
From the decision · page 2This matter was set for trial, and the trial date has now been vacated due to applicant's counsel filing multiple petitions for removal. Any harm that exists in this case through delay is presently caused by applicant's own filings, which could be construed as frivolous.
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.