Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Petitioner must show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to grant removal; reconsideration must not be an adequate remedy if removal is denied
Applied to deny removal petition
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
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 petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if
the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Lab. Code, 5701, 5906
WCJ has authority to order development of the record when evidence is insufficient for a just decision
Applied to uphold WCJ's order for development of the record
From the decision · page 2Irrespective of the status of the appeal in Nunes, however, we observe that the WCJ is
vested with the authority and discretion to order development of the record in those instances
where, following a review of the record, the WCJ determines that there is insufficient evidence
upon which reach a just and reasoned decision. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924, 926§ 927] (Tyler);
Lundberg v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 436 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 656, 659];
King v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1640 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 408, 414];
Raymond Plastering v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (King) (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 748 [60 Cal.
Rptr. 860] [32 Cal.Comp.Cases 287, 291].) The principle of allowing full development of the
evidentiary record to enable a complete adjudication of the issues is consistent with due process in
connection with workers' compensation claims. (Tyler, supra, at p. 928.)