What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration/Removal deniedp. 4
Petition for Reconsideration/Removal filed and denied by the Appeals Board
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 denied the petition because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 3Appeals 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 significant 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 27, 2026, and the petition was acted upon within the 60-day period ending September 25, 2026.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timely action satisfied the requirements of Labor Code section 5909 for petitions for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 27, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is September 25, 2026. This decision is issued by or on September 25, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the Petition as required by section 5909(a). Section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides notice to the Appeals Board.
The petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such a showing, the Appeals Board denied the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 3Appeals 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 significant 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petitions for reconsideration filed on or after July 14, 2026 are subject to Labor Code section 5909, which requires the Appeals Board to act within 60 days of case transmission.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within 60 days of transmission on July 27, 2026.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration. I. Petitions for reconsideration filed on or after July 14, 2026 are subject to Labor Code 1 0F
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.
From the decision · page 3Appeals 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 significant 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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
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.