This section has been repealed. It stays here because decisions applied it while it stood, and those decisions are unreadable without it. Do not rely on it as current law.
Where this sits
- Chapter 4.5.
- Division of Workers' Compensation
- Subchapter 2. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board--Rules and Practice Procedure
- Article 15. Findings, Awards and Orders
The regulation, as printed
The state publishes this section as a document rather than as text. Open the official copy below.
Authority and history
Note: Authority cited: Sections 133, 5307, 5309 and 5708, Labor Code. Reference: Section 5310, Labor Code.
1. New section filed 12-23-93; operative 1-1-94. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 93, No. 52). 2. Amendment filed 12-12-2000; operative 1-1-2001. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 2000, No. 50). 5. Renumbering of former section 10842 to section 10945 and renumbering and amendment of former section 10778 to section 10842 filed 12-17-2019; operative 1-1-2020. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 2019, No. 51). 3. Amendment filed 12-19-2002; operative 1-1-2003. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 2002, No. 51). 4. Amendment of section heading, section and Note filed 11-17-2008; operative 11-17-2008. Submitted to OAL for printing only (Register 2008, No. 47). 5. Renumbering of former section 10843 to section 10955 filed 12-17-2019; operative 1-1-2020. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 2019, No. 51).
What panels did with this rule
Released decisions that named § 10843, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.
- ADJ12703817 · 2026-06-05 · Pomona District Office8 CCR § 10843
Determinative passage · p.5III. Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, defendant failed to establish any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm resulting from the WCJ's orders regarding discovery. The sole dispute is the proper rate of payment, and cost petitioner is attempting to obtain information from defendant to establish the market rate. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation to establish its market rate for its translation services and to produce a witness for deposition regarding the market rate for the geographic region.
Applied to defendant's petition for removal of discovery orders.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ number not stated · 2026-01-27 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10843
Determinative passage · p.8Removal 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, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).)
The WCAB applied this standard to decide to grant the petition for removal.
- ADJ16327959 · 2025-12-26 · Sacramento District Office8 CCR § 10843
Determinative passage · p.4III. Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).)
Applied to deny defendant's petition for removal due to lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ12910087 · 2025-12-04 · Oakland District Office8 CCR § 10843
Determinative passage · p.4Removal 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, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) In addition, 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, § 10843(a).)
The Board denied removal because defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the rescission of the decision and return to trial level.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ number not stated · 2025-11-03 · Oxnard District Office8 CCR § 10843
Determinative passage · p.4Removal 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, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted when reconsideration is inadequate and substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur.
- ADJ7508584 · 2025-04-14 · Marina del Rey District Office8 CCR § 10843
Determinative passage · p.5III DISCUSSION A Petition for Removal is an extraordinary remedy, rarely exercised by the appeals Board, and is generally available only where the petitioner has established that substantial prejudice or irreparable injury will result if removal is not granted. Swedlow, Inc. v WCAB (Smith) (1983) 48 CCC 476 (writ denied); Lubin v. Berkeley East Convalescent Hospital (1976) 41 CCC 283 (Board Panel); Hardesty v. McCord & Holdren, Inc. et. al. (1976) 41 CCC 111 (Board En Banc). Further CCR section 10843 requires a showing that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy after issuance of a final order, decision or award. In the instant case, the undersigned presiding judge agrees that the Petition for Removal should be granted and the matter should be returned to WCJ Jackson to set for further hearing. The WCJ is unable to act as she no longer has jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, the undersigned humbly requests that the WCAB remand this matter back the WCJ to address accordingly.
The Petition for Removal was granted because the WCJ failed to timely address the Petition, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to the Defendant, and reconsideration was inadequate as a remedy.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ19245370 · 2025-03-11 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10843
Determinative passage · p.3Removal 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, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).)
The WCAB applied this standard in granting removal of the WCJ's order denying joinder.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ19199519 · 2025-02-18 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10843
Determinative passage · p.5shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must
Removal granted because due process was denied by summary denial of joinder without hearing or notice.
Official decision · page 5 →
Rules beside this one
Article 15. Findings, Awards and Orders — regulations rarely stand alone, and the answer is often two sections away.
- § 10840Approval of Attorney's Fee by Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Required.1 decisions
- § 10842Request for Increase of Attorney's Fee9 decisions
- § 10844Reasonable Attorney's Fee.21 decisions
- § 10845General Requirements for Petitions for Reconsideration, Removal, and Disqualification, and for Answers and Other Documents. [Repealed]
- § 10846Skeletal Petitions. [Renumbered]
- § 10848Supplemental Petitions. [Renumbered]1 decisions