California WCABLaw firm

Ingber & Weinberg

Ingber & Weinberg is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (2) and Permanent disability rating (2). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Oxnard. The firm it meets most often is Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld (2).

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 6

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 11 of 11 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Who they face

7 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Van Nuys 5
Oxnard 3
Anaheim 2
Marina del Rey 1
Pomona 1
Riverside 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

8 for the defense
6 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

Counted over 13 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ11319973 · 2025-06-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10On March 18, 2025, the undersigned WCJ issued Partial Findings and a Notice of Further Proceedings. The undersigned WCJ found the injury compensable and reserved on all other issues including but not limited to retroactive temporary disability indemnity and nature and extent. It is from the finding of compensability that Defendant seeks relief. DISCUSSION: EDWIN HARONIAN, M.D. IS THE PRIMARY TREATING PHYSICIAN
The WCJ and Appeals Board found Dr. Haronian to be the primary treating physician and his reports admissible, rejecting defendant's objections that he was not the PTP and that his reports should be stricken.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ10661601 · 2024-05-21 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a March 12, 2021 Joint Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ also found the July 24, 2020 report of treater, Dr. Khalid Ahmed, to be inadmissible. Applicant alleges that the report should have been admitted under Labor Code section2 5502(d)(3) as it was unavailable at the time of the July 6, 2020 mandatory settlement conference (MSC).
The July 24, 2020 medical report was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC and thus should be admitted under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). Due process and fair hearing principles support admitting the report to ensure full development of the evidentiary record and substantial evidence support.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11780107 · 2023-02-15 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Date of Alleged Injury: March 1, 2016 through June 14, 2017 Parts of Body Alleged: Cervical spine, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, back, bilateral hips, bilateral knees, Identity of Petitioner: bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, bilateral Timeliness: elbows, bilateral arms, psyche. Verification: Defendant Date of Orders: The petition was timely filed on December 19, 2022 The petition was verified November 23, 2022
The Board found that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because the Amended Application filed on December 20, 2018 was timely and the applicant did not have sufficient knowledge of her cumulative trauma claim against IHSS before that date.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ9602729 · 2023-02-03 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Here, the delay in payment of settlement proceeds owed to applicant was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not offer any evidence regarding any of the mitigating Ramirez factors. While defendant introduced evidence that payment was issued, that does not establish that defendant actually sent the check to applicant via US mail. Defendant is entitled to rely on the US Postal Service for mailing correspondence, but in this case, defendant offered no evidence that it put the payment in the mail. Defendant provided no testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding the purported payment. Therefore, we find a penalty appropriate to the facts herein, plus interest and attorney's fees.
The delay in payment of settlement proceeds was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not provide evidence of mailing the payment or mitigating factors. Therefore, penalties, interest and attorney fees were awarded to applicant.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ10641716 · 2022-10-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6However, we will delete any finding of temporary disability. Applicant testified that he worked from his return from his heart temporary disability on February 21, 2016 until his retirement in July of 2017. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 13, 2019 trial at p. 9.) There was no evidence or allegation that applicant retired due to any disability or defendant not accommodating applicant's work restrictions. In State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp.Appeals Bd. (Rodarte) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 998, 1003 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 579], the Court of Appeal made clear that neither medical treatment nor modified work restrictions without wage loss, in and of themselves, are sufficient to constitute "disability." "[T]here is no compensable temporary disability until the worker suffers wage loss." (Rodarte, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1003.) "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Here, applicant did not present any evidence supporting wage loss as a result of his orthopedic injury. We therefore find that applicant did not prove entitlement to temporary disability in this case.
Applicant did not prove entitlement to temporary disability for orthopedic injury due to lack of wage loss evidence despite medical treatment and work restrictions.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ11024968 · 2022-02-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (Joint F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 20, 2021.1 By the Joint F&O, the WCJ found that the post-examination telephone calls of the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) with applicant were an impermissible ex parte communication. The WCJ ordered the Medical Unit to issue a replacement panel in psychiatry.
The WCAB found that the QME's telephone calls were made with applicant's permission and were in connection with the examination, thus not impermissible ex parte communication under Labor Code section 4062.3(i). There was no basis to strike the QME or order a replacement panel.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13719149 · 2022-01-21 · Oxnard District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded
Determinative passage · p.12In this case, pursuant to the discussion above, we are unable to ascertain the reasons or grounds upon which the WCJ determined in the Report that applicant presented evidence sufficient to prove his prima facie claim. We note, moreover, that a record of the grounds for such a decision is necessary not only for our review, but for defendant to present its business necessities defense, as appropriate. We therefore conclude that the WCJ should develop the record on the issue of whether and on what grounds applicant has established a prima facie case that defendant discriminated against him in violation of section 132a, and other issues such as whether the business necessities defense applies or constitutes a mere pretext for adverse treatment, as appropriate. Accordingly, we will rescind the F&A in case number ADJ10738865 and return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The WCJ's findings on discrimination were rescinded for further development of the record on whether applicant established a prima facie case and whether the business necessities defense applies.
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ12263514 · 2022-01-06 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6An AME is presumably chosen by the parties because of his or her expertise and neutrality. Therefore, AME Dr. Hyman's opinions should be followed unless there is a good reason to find his opinions unpersuasive. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114, 117].) In his reports and deposition testimony, Dr. Hyman repeatedly explained his opinion that applicant's heart is impacted with multiple conditions, and because of the severity of the conditions, his heart cannot properly compensate for any one of the conditions. Therefore, applicant's heart is materially worse than it would be with only one of these conditions and the impairments should be added as opposed to combined due to the additive effect that the conditions have on his heart.
The AME Dr. Hyman's well-reasoned opinion that the multiple cardiovascular impairments have an additive effect on the heart was found persuasive and supported by substantial evidence, leading to the conclusion that impairments should be added rather than combined.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ15061583 · 2024-11-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on August 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury to the lumbar spine on December 29, 2019, and that applicant was employed by defendant at the time of injury.
The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10960924 · 2023-10-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The petition failed to cite specific evidence and was contrary to the substantial evidence in the record, including medical opinions from QME Dr. Anderson and Dr. Nguyen, which did not support fibromyalgia or industrial aggravation of diabetes and hypertension.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11319973 · 2023-02-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.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.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9148470 · 2021-05-24 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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.
The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

INGBER & WEINBERG
INGBER & WEINBERG, LLP
LAW OFFICES OF INGBER & WEINBERG
Ingber & Weinberg
Ingber Weinberg
INGBER WEINBERG

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

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

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Ingber & Weinberg

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

8 for the defense

6 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ11319973 · 2025-06-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10On March 18, 2025, the undersigned WCJ issued Partial Findings and a Notice of Further Proceedings. The undersigned WCJ found the injury compensable and reserved on all other issues including but not limited to retroactive temporary disability indemnity and nature and extent. It is from the finding of compensability that Defendant seeks relief. DISCUSSION: EDWIN HARONIAN, M.D. IS THE PRIMARY TREATING PHYSICIAN

The WCJ and Appeals Board found Dr. Haronian to be the primary treating physician and his reports admissible, rejecting defendant's objections that he was not the PTP and that his reports should be stricken.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ10661601 · 2024-05-21 · Pomona District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a March 12, 2021 Joint Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ also found the July 24, 2020 report of treater, Dr. Khalid Ahmed, to be inadmissible. Applicant alleges that the report should have been admitted under Labor Code section2 5502(d)(3) as it was unavailable at the time of the July 6, 2020 mandatory settlement conference (MSC).

The July 24, 2020 medical report was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC and thus should be admitted under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). Due process and fair hearing principles support admitting the report to ensure full development of the evidentiary record and substantial evidence support.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11780107 · 2023-02-15 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Date of Alleged Injury: March 1, 2016 through June 14, 2017 Parts of Body Alleged: Cervical spine, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, back, bilateral hips, bilateral knees, Identity of Petitioner: bilateral ankles, bilateral feet, bilateral Timeliness: elbows, bilateral arms, psyche. Verification: Defendant Date of Orders: The petition was timely filed on December 19, 2022 The petition was verified November 23, 2022

The Board found that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because the Amended Application filed on December 20, 2018 was timely and the applicant did not have sufficient knowledge of her cumulative trauma claim against IHSS before that date.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ9602729 · 2023-02-03 · Van Nuys District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Here, the delay in payment of settlement proceeds owed to applicant was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not offer any evidence regarding any of the mitigating Ramirez factors. While defendant introduced evidence that payment was issued, that does not establish that defendant actually sent the check to applicant via US mail. Defendant is entitled to rely on the US Postal Service for mailing correspondence, but in this case, defendant offered no evidence that it put the payment in the mail. Defendant provided no testimonial evidence from claims adjusters or supervisors regarding the purported payment. Therefore, we find a penalty appropriate to the facts herein, plus interest and attorney's fees.

The delay in payment of settlement proceeds was over 80 days, which was unreasonable. Defendant did not provide evidence of mailing the payment or mitigating factors. Therefore, penalties, interest and attorney fees were awarded to applicant.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ10641716 · 2022-10-07 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6However, we will delete any finding of temporary disability. Applicant testified that he worked from his return from his heart temporary disability on February 21, 2016 until his retirement in July of 2017. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 13, 2019 trial at p. 9.) There was no evidence or allegation that applicant retired due to any disability or defendant not accommodating applicant's work restrictions. In State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp.Appeals Bd. (Rodarte) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 998, 1003 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 579], the Court of Appeal made clear that neither medical treatment nor modified work restrictions without wage loss, in and of themselves, are sufficient to constitute "disability." "[T]here is no compensable temporary disability until the worker suffers wage loss." (Rodarte, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1003.) "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Here, applicant did not present any evidence supporting wage loss as a result of his orthopedic injury. We therefore find that applicant did not prove entitlement to temporary disability in this case.

Applicant did not prove entitlement to temporary disability for orthopedic injury due to lack of wage loss evidence despite medical treatment and work restrictions.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ11024968 · 2022-02-25 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (Joint F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 20, 2021.1 By the Joint F&O, the WCJ found that the post-examination telephone calls of the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) with applicant were an impermissible ex parte communication. The WCJ ordered the Medical Unit to issue a replacement panel in psychiatry.

The WCAB found that the QME's telephone calls were made with applicant's permission and were in connection with the examination, thus not impermissible ex parte communication under Labor Code section 4062.3(i). There was no basis to strike the QME or order a replacement panel.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13719149 · 2022-01-21 · Oxnard District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

Determinative passage · p.12In this case, pursuant to the discussion above, we are unable to ascertain the reasons or grounds upon which the WCJ determined in the Report that applicant presented evidence sufficient to prove his prima facie claim. We note, moreover, that a record of the grounds for such a decision is necessary not only for our review, but for defendant to present its business necessities defense, as appropriate. We therefore conclude that the WCJ should develop the record on the issue of whether and on what grounds applicant has established a prima facie case that defendant discriminated against him in violation of section 132a, and other issues such as whether the business necessities defense applies or constitutes a mere pretext for adverse treatment, as appropriate. Accordingly, we will rescind the F&A in case number ADJ10738865 and return the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The WCJ's findings on discrimination were rescinded for further development of the record on whether applicant established a prima facie case and whether the business necessities defense applies.

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ12263514 · 2022-01-06 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6An AME is presumably chosen by the parties because of his or her expertise and neutrality. Therefore, AME Dr. Hyman's opinions should be followed unless there is a good reason to find his opinions unpersuasive. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114, 117].) In his reports and deposition testimony, Dr. Hyman repeatedly explained his opinion that applicant's heart is impacted with multiple conditions, and because of the severity of the conditions, his heart cannot properly compensate for any one of the conditions. Therefore, applicant's heart is materially worse than it would be with only one of these conditions and the impairments should be added as opposed to combined due to the additive effect that the conditions have on his heart.

The AME Dr. Hyman's well-reasoned opinion that the multiple cardiovascular impairments have an additive effect on the heart was found persuasive and supported by substantial evidence, leading to the conclusion that impairments should be added rather than combined.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ15061583 · 2024-11-25 · Anaheim District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on August 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury to the lumbar spine on December 29, 2019, and that applicant was employed by defendant at the time of injury.

The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, denying the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10960924 · 2023-10-23 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

The petition failed to cite specific evidence and was contrary to the substantial evidence in the record, including medical opinions from QME Dr. Anderson and Dr. Nguyen, which did not support fibromyalgia or industrial aggravation of diabetes and hypertension.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11319973 · 2023-02-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.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.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9148470 · 2021-05-24 · Riverside District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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.

The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →