Where this sits
- Chapter 4.5.
- Division of Workers' Compensation
- Subchapter 2. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board--Rules and Practice Procedure
- Article 18. Reconsideration, Removal and Disqualification
The regulation, as printed
(a) At any time within 20 days after the service of the order or decision, or of the occurrence of the action in issue, any party may petition for removal based upon one or more of the following grounds: (1) The order, decision or action will result in significant prejudice. (2) The order, decision or action will result in irreparable harm. The petitioner must also demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy after the issuance of a final order, decision or award. Failure to file the petition to remove timely shall constitute valid ground for dismissing the petition for removal. (b) The petition for removal and any answer shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record. (c) A copy of the petition for removal shall be served forthwith upon all parties by the petitioner. Any adverse party may file an answer within 10 days after service. No supplemental petitions, pleadings or responses shall be considered unless requested or approved by the Appeals Board. (d) A workers' compensation judge may, within 15 days of the filing of the petition for removal, rescind the order or decision in issue, or take action to resolve the issue raised in the petition. If the workers' compensation judge so acts, or if the petitioner withdraws the petition at any time, the petition for removal will be deemed automatically dismissed, requiring no further action by the Appeals Board. The issuance of a new order or decision, or the occurrence of a new action, will recommence the time period for filing a petition for removal as described above. (e) The filing of a petition for removal does not terminate the workers' compensation judge's authority to proceed in a case or require the workers' compensation judge to continue or cancel a previously scheduled hearing absent direction from the Appeals Board. After a petition for removal has been filed, the workers' compensation judge shall consult with the presiding workers' compensation judge prior to proceeding in the case or continuing or canceling a scheduled hearing.
Authority and history
Note: Authority cited: Sections 133, 5307, 5309 and 5708, Labor Code. Reference: Section 5310, Labor Code.
1. Renumbering and amendment 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). For prior history, see Register 2008, No. 47.
What panels did with this rule
Released decisions that named § 10955, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.
- ADJ8497367 · 2026-09-24 · Sacramento District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.22 [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, § 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, the July 2, 2026 decision to take SIBTF issues off calendar while the case against the employer continues is not a threshold issue as SIBTF is not dismissed from the case, just taken off calendar to let the case against the employer move forward first. Issues against SIBTF are saved for a later date. As such, the July 2, 2026 decision is an interlocutory order and we treat this petition as a petition for removal. Although we understand applicant’s predicament in being now subjected to the new law that came into effect in July 2026, we agree with the WCJ that applicant’s April 30, 2026 Declaration of Readiness does not fall under the safe harbor provision of section 4758(a)(3) as the declaration of readiness did not indicate that applicant’s SIBTF claim was ready to proceed to trial. Accordingly, we deny removal.
Applied to deny removal petition as SIBTF issues were interlocutory and no irreparable harm shown.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ18995801 · 2026-09-10 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.38, § 10205.5.) Coldiron specifically outlines that the responsible entity must inform the Board of the appropriate parties at the earliest opportunity and no later than “at least the commencement of any litigation in the case.” (Coldiron, supra, at p. 294.) 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 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).)
The Board granted removal because defendant showed substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ17078550 · 2026-09-08 · Santa Rosa District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.32 [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, § 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 the petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ21618015 · 2026-09-08 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.4Kleemann 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 WCJ ordered that this matter proceed to a mandatory settlement conference, which is required prior to setting any of the issues in applicant’s case for trial. No trial on the merits has occurred in this proceeding. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp.
Petitioner failed to meet this burden; removal denied.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ18454068 · 2026-08-31 · Marina del Rey District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.25 [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, § 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 the petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, so removal was denied.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ19945323 · 2026-08-31 · Lodi District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.1Based on our review of the record we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the Order Regarding Remote Trial issued on June 3, 2026, and issue an order granting applicant’s request for remote trial. 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 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
The Board found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm as the trial would be completed before reconsideration could remedy the denial of remote trial.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ16870990 · 2026-08-25 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.1We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. 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 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
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found the defendant did not meet the burden to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ18956084 · 2026-08-25 · San Jose District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.5Removal 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, the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar for further development of the record.
Removal granted because WCJ's order off calendar violated due process and caused irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 5 →
Rules beside this one
Article 18. Reconsideration, Removal and Disqualification — regulations rarely stand alone, and the answer is often two sections away.
- § 10952Appeal of Notice of Compensation Due. [Repealed]
- § 10953Petition Appealing Audit Penalty Assessment - Labor Code Section 129.5(g). [Renumbered]
- § 10956Rehabilitation Records. [Repealed]
- § 10957Petition Appealing Independent Bill Review Determination of the Administrative Director. [Renumbered]
- § 10957.1Petition Appealing Independent Medical Review Determination of the Administrative Director. [Renumbered]
- § 10958Hearing and Burden of Proof. [Repealed]