What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal denied; matter to proceed to continued Mandatory Settlement Conference for further development of offsets issue.
Applicant petitioned for removal after the WCJ continued the Mandatory Settlement Conference to allow further discovery on offsets/credits issues.
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.
Removal is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. Here, no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was found by continuing the MSC for further discovery.
From the decision · page 2A party may petition for removal of an interim order. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955.) Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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).) Here, we conclude that there is no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm by continuing the mandatory settlement conference for approximately 90 days to allow further discovery.