California WCABLaw firm

McNamara and Drass

McNamara and Drass is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4), Permanent disability rating (2) and Discrimination under Labor Code §132a (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Long Beach. The firm it meets most often is Asvar Law (1).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 6

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 9 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 4
Long Beach 3
Los Angeles 2
Oxnard 1
Pomona 1
Santa Ana 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.

5 for the defense
4 for the applicant
3 returned for more record

Counted over 12 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

ADJ9600339 · 2026-06-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on December 6, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE)1 to various body parts; and that defendant did not deny medical treatment to applicant.
The Board found that defendant's refusal to authorize treatment with Dr. Patterson, a physician employed by Casa Colina listed in the MPN, constituted an unreasonable denial of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600 and related regulations and precedent cases Rivas and Montiel.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19575926 · 2025-06-30 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7This claim is straightforward. Though applicant was no longer "on the clock," he was performing the task for which he was hired by the defendant, caring for the patient, while still on the premises to which he was assigned by the employer. It is certainly anticipated by the employer that applicant should have continued to assist the patient, who struggled with balance, with walking to bed even though he had already clocked out for his shift. In fact, no testimony was elicited as to any policies the employer may have had for caretaking, clocking out, or even staying beyond one's shift. Given the nature of the employment, the employer could not have expected that applicant
Applicant was performing a task for which he was hired, caring for the patient, while still on the employer's premises, and such activity was reasonably anticipated by the employer even though applicant had clocked out. No evidence showed applicant was acting inconsistently with his employment.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ10543015 · 2025-06-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.8opinions contained within the medical reporting are conclusory and provide no indication for why the QME reached the conclusion that he did. As explained in Vigil, the QME must provide a reasoned analysis to rebut the CVC, and that analysis must constitute substantial medical evidence. Accordingly, the present award of permanent disability is not supported by substantial medical evidence and must be rescinded.
The QME's opinions on CVC rebuttal, apportionment, and temporary disability were conclusory and not supported by substantial medical evidence. The record does not sufficiently establish the periods of temporary disability, and the apportionment opinions lack adequate explanation. The award is not supported by substantial evidence and must be rescinded.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ14289195 · 2024-09-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3II. Section 5813(a) provides for sanctions for "bad-faith actions or tactics which are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813(a).) These include "actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation, that result from a willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, or that are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) Here, as explained further below, we do not agree that applicant's attorney's petition seeking fees pursuant to section 5710 was indisputably without merit or otherwise displayed sanctionable conduct. Sanctions are designed to punish litigation abuses and to provide the court a tool for curbing improper legal tactics and controlling their calendars. (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 294, 302.) An argument that is unmeritorious is not necessarily frivolous, which can be defined as "not having any serious purpose or value". (See "Frivolous", Google Dictionary, retrieved September 13, 2024, from http://www.google.com.) Section 5710 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The WCAB found no sanctionable conduct by applicant's attorney and denied all attorney fees and sanctions requests due to lack of proof of entitlement to additional fees.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ13552142 · 2024-07-24 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on May 4, 2021, wherein the WCA found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her back, left arm, left leg and left knee during the period August 26, 2019 through August 26, 2020.
The record was incomplete and lacked proper evidence and transcript, preventing meaningful review of the post-termination defense issue; thus, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10618904 · 2023-10-31 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.
The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel QMEs Dr. Moore (neurology) and Dr. Watkin (orthopedics), which the WCJ relied on; applicant did not show why this evidence was insufficient or why the record should be further developed.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ13504941 · 2022-12-30 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Moreover, wherever else the Petition references medical reports or other assertions, there are no citations in support of the same. The Applicant did not meet his burden of proof on the issue of injury AOE/COE It is well established that a specific injury needs to cause disability or need for medical treatment.4 An Applicant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish that an injury occurred.5 Moreover, it is well established that medical opinions must be based on substantial medical evidence.6 Part of substantiality includes the factual accuracy of what is presented therein, as well as the credible testimony of witnesses in support of said facts. The trial judge is afforded great latitude in credibility determination.7 Regarding the finding of no injury, the Petition takes issue finding that Dr. Haronian's opinions are not substantial. The Petition seeks to blame Applicant's prior attorney for the wrong
The WCJ found the Applicant not credible and noted inconsistencies in medical reports and testimony, concluding the Applicant did not meet the burden of proof for injury AOE/COE.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11161737 · 2022-12-29 · Oxnard District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4On 10/21/2022, this Court issued the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision at issue herein. This Court Found that Applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of said employment as alleged based upon the medical reporting of the psychology QME, Dr. Appleton, and because Applicant's testimony was not credible and could not be relied upon as the basis for any Findings by the Court.
Applicant's testimony was found not credible and could not be relied upon; medical opinions supporting injury were based solely on applicant's self-reporting and lacked objective corroboration; the reporting of Dr. Appleton, QME in psychology, was found to be substantial evidence supporting denial of injury.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ8928136 · 2021-12-13 · Long Beach District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Defendants, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) and Insurance Company of the West (ICW) each petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 23, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained cumulative injuries to his cervical spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, forearms, lumbar spine, knees and pulmonary system and consisting of GERD, constipation and diabetes arising out of and in the course of his employment by Nowell Steel and Supply Company, Inc., as a material handler during periods ending August 16, 2012, and April 26, 2013. The WCJ also found that applicant's injuries caused temporary disability for the periods August 16, 2012, through April 4, 2013, and June 13, 2013, through April 16, 2014, permanent partial disability of 79% and need of further medical treatment. The WCJ made a joint award of benefits against both Zurich and ICW and ordered Zurich to pay and administer benefits.
The WCJ found cumulative injuries and awarded temporary and permanent disability benefits jointly against Zurich and ICW; the defendants challenged these findings in petitions for reconsideration, but the WCJ recommended denial and the WCAB remanded for settlement consideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ526691 · 2023-03-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration we issued on November 18, 2022, wherein we rescinded the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings that (1) Dr. Stuart Kramer's March 2, 2022 Request for Authorization (RFA) is by the same physician for the same treatment and is not supported by a documented change in material facts from the prior, timely utilization review decision dated October 22, 2021; (2) AD Rule 9792.9.1(h) bars the treatment requested in the March 2, 2022 RFA, specifically, home health care in the form of CNA care for sixteen hours per day, seven days per week for six months and LVN care for eight hours per day, seven days per week for six months; and substituted findings that (1) a documented change to the facts material to the October 22, 2021 UR decision render it no longer effective with regard to the further recommendation by Dr.
The petition was timely filed but delayed due to an internal processing error; the Board adjudicated the merits and denied the petition because the further recommendation by Dr. Kramer for LVN and CNA care was supported by a documented change in material facts and substantial medical evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14040603 · 2023-02-25 · 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 found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13378182 · 2022-02-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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, now § 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 280, fn. 2.) Additionally, 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, now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) In light of the considerations discussed below, we conclude that granting removal is appropriate in this matter.
The Board granted removal because the WCJ issued an order with a self-voiding clause without a notice of intention, did not hold a hearing or make a good cause finding, and the order was served by designated service rather than the WCJ, violating due process rights.
Official decision · page 2 →

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.

MCNAMARA & DRASS, LLP
MCNAMARA & DRASS
MCNAMARA DRASS
LAW OFFICES OF MCNAMARA & DRASS
McNamara and Drass
McNamara & Drass
McNAMARA & DRASS
McNAMARA DRASS

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 →

McNamara and Drass

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

4 for the applicant

3 returned for more record

Counted over 12 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

ADJ9600339 · 2026-06-22 · Los Angeles District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on December 6, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE)1 to various body parts; and that defendant did not deny medical treatment to applicant.

The Board found that defendant's refusal to authorize treatment with Dr. Patterson, a physician employed by Casa Colina listed in the MPN, constituted an unreasonable denial of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600 and related regulations and precedent cases Rivas and Montiel.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19575926 · 2025-06-30 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7This claim is straightforward. Though applicant was no longer "on the clock," he was performing the task for which he was hired by the defendant, caring for the patient, while still on the premises to which he was assigned by the employer. It is certainly anticipated by the employer that applicant should have continued to assist the patient, who struggled with balance, with walking to bed even though he had already clocked out for his shift. In fact, no testimony was elicited as to any policies the employer may have had for caretaking, clocking out, or even staying beyond one's shift. Given the nature of the employment, the employer could not have expected that applicant

Applicant was performing a task for which he was hired, caring for the patient, while still on the employer's premises, and such activity was reasonably anticipated by the employer even though applicant had clocked out. No evidence showed applicant was acting inconsistently with his employment.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ10543015 · 2025-06-06 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.8opinions contained within the medical reporting are conclusory and provide no indication for why the QME reached the conclusion that he did. As explained in Vigil, the QME must provide a reasoned analysis to rebut the CVC, and that analysis must constitute substantial medical evidence. Accordingly, the present award of permanent disability is not supported by substantial medical evidence and must be rescinded.

The QME's opinions on CVC rebuttal, apportionment, and temporary disability were conclusory and not supported by substantial medical evidence. The record does not sufficiently establish the periods of temporary disability, and the apportionment opinions lack adequate explanation. The award is not supported by substantial evidence and must be rescinded.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ14289195 · 2024-09-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeSanctions under Labor Code §5813defendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3II. Section 5813(a) provides for sanctions for "bad-faith actions or tactics which are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813(a).) These include "actions or tactics that result from a willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation, that result from a willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, or that are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) Here, as explained further below, we do not agree that applicant's attorney's petition seeking fees pursuant to section 5710 was indisputably without merit or otherwise displayed sanctionable conduct. Sanctions are designed to punish litigation abuses and to provide the court a tool for curbing improper legal tactics and controlling their calendars. (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 294, 302.) An argument that is unmeritorious is not necessarily frivolous, which can be defined as "not having any serious purpose or value". (See "Frivolous", Google Dictionary, retrieved September 13, 2024, from http://www.google.com.) Section 5710 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

The WCAB found no sanctionable conduct by applicant's attorney and denied all attorney fees and sanctions requests due to lack of proof of entitlement to additional fees.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ13552142 · 2024-07-24 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on May 4, 2021, wherein the WCA found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her back, left arm, left leg and left knee during the period August 26, 2019 through August 26, 2020.

The record was incomplete and lacked proper evidence and transcript, preventing meaningful review of the post-termination defense issue; thus, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10618904 · 2023-10-31 · Long Beach District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.

The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel QMEs Dr. Moore (neurology) and Dr. Watkin (orthopedics), which the WCJ relied on; applicant did not show why this evidence was insufficient or why the record should be further developed.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ13504941 · 2022-12-30 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Moreover, wherever else the Petition references medical reports or other assertions, there are no citations in support of the same. The Applicant did not meet his burden of proof on the issue of injury AOE/COE It is well established that a specific injury needs to cause disability or need for medical treatment.4 An Applicant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish that an injury occurred.5 Moreover, it is well established that medical opinions must be based on substantial medical evidence.6 Part of substantiality includes the factual accuracy of what is presented therein, as well as the credible testimony of witnesses in support of said facts. The trial judge is afforded great latitude in credibility determination.7 Regarding the finding of no injury, the Petition takes issue finding that Dr. Haronian's opinions are not substantial. The Petition seeks to blame Applicant's prior attorney for the wrong

The WCJ found the Applicant not credible and noted inconsistencies in medical reports and testimony, concluding the Applicant did not meet the burden of proof for injury AOE/COE.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11161737 · 2022-12-29 · Oxnard District OfficePsyche AOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4On 10/21/2022, this Court issued the Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision at issue herein. This Court Found that Applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of said employment as alleged based upon the medical reporting of the psychology QME, Dr. Appleton, and because Applicant's testimony was not credible and could not be relied upon as the basis for any Findings by the Court.

Applicant's testimony was found not credible and could not be relied upon; medical opinions supporting injury were based solely on applicant's self-reporting and lacked objective corroboration; the reporting of Dr. Appleton, QME in psychology, was found to be substantial evidence supporting denial of injury.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ8928136 · 2021-12-13 · Long Beach District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Defendants, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) and Insurance Company of the West (ICW) each petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 23, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained cumulative injuries to his cervical spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists, forearms, lumbar spine, knees and pulmonary system and consisting of GERD, constipation and diabetes arising out of and in the course of his employment by Nowell Steel and Supply Company, Inc., as a material handler during periods ending August 16, 2012, and April 26, 2013. The WCJ also found that applicant's injuries caused temporary disability for the periods August 16, 2012, through April 4, 2013, and June 13, 2013, through April 16, 2014, permanent partial disability of 79% and need of further medical treatment. The WCJ made a joint award of benefits against both Zurich and ICW and ordered Zurich to pay and administer benefits.

The WCJ found cumulative injuries and awarded temporary and permanent disability benefits jointly against Zurich and ICW; the defendants challenged these findings in petitions for reconsideration, but the WCJ recommended denial and the WCAB remanded for settlement consideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ526691 · 2023-03-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration we issued on November 18, 2022, wherein we rescinded the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings that (1) Dr. Stuart Kramer's March 2, 2022 Request for Authorization (RFA) is by the same physician for the same treatment and is not supported by a documented change in material facts from the prior, timely utilization review decision dated October 22, 2021; (2) AD Rule 9792.9.1(h) bars the treatment requested in the March 2, 2022 RFA, specifically, home health care in the form of CNA care for sixteen hours per day, seven days per week for six months and LVN care for eight hours per day, seven days per week for six months; and substituted findings that (1) a documented change to the facts material to the October 22, 2021 UR decision render it no longer effective with regard to the further recommendation by Dr.

The petition was timely filed but delayed due to an internal processing error; the Board adjudicated the merits and denied the petition because the further recommendation by Dr. Kramer for LVN and CNA care was supported by a documented change in material facts and substantial medical evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14040603 · 2023-02-25 · 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 found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13378182 · 2022-02-04 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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, now § 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 280, fn. 2.) Additionally, 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, now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) In light of the considerations discussed below, we conclude that granting removal is appropriate in this matter.

The Board granted removal because the WCJ issued an order with a self-voiding clause without a notice of intention, did not hold a hearing or make a good cause finding, and the order was served by designated service rather than the WCJ, violating due process rights.

Official decision · page 2 →