ADJ8555784 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for removal from the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration dated October 3, 2023, partially affirming and partially amending WCJ Findings and Awards

Read the official decision →

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 4resolve the issues discussed in our decision. Here, the essence of applicant's petition for removal is her complaint that the record should not be further developed because it will delay final resolution of her claim in ADJ9828972, resulting in significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Accordingly, we will evaluate the issues raised by applicant's petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions, i.e., significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

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)

The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.

The Board applied this standard to deny the petition for removal because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 4Removal 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 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).)

Labor Code section 5906

The Legislature has expressly granted authority to the Board to amend decisions or grant reconsideration and direct additional evidence.

The Board relied on this statute to affirm its authority to further develop the record and deny removal.

From the decision · page 6In this case, therefore, Section Four of Article XIV of our state constitution does not require us to affirm the WCJ's decision of January 19, 2021 or to render a final decision on permanent disability within a certain amount of time, as alleged by applicant. This is because applicant's right to a final determination of permanent disability is subject to Labor Code section 5906. Pursuant to this statute, which does not itself include a time limit, the Legislature has expressly granted authority to the Board to "amend the order, decision, or award made and filed by...the [WCJ] on the basis of the evidence previously submitted in the case, or [the Board] may grant reconsideration and direct the taking of additional evidence."

ADJ8555784 · December 22, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page