What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar.p. 3
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 28, 2026, by the WCJ.
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 that the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to the defendant.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter should have proceeded to trial. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 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 and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. 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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact led the Appeals Board to deny the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter should have proceeded to trial. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 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 and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. 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.
Reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to the defendant.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported the denial of removal as the Appeals Board found reconsideration sufficient.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter should have proceeded to trial. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 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 and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. 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.
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
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter should have proceeded to trial. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 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 and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. 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.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
The petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter should have proceeded to trial. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 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 and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. 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.
Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d)
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record and supported by substantial evidence.
The Appeals Board requires an adequate and complete record to understand the basis for the WCJ’s decision.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter should have proceeded to trial. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. 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 and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. 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.
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.