What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal denied by the WCAB panel.
Defendant sought removal of the WCJ's November 9, 2020 Minute Order setting trial on vocational rehabilitation costs; WCJ issued a Report recommending denial of removal.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate remedy; arguments can be made at trial.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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, § 10955(a)(1)-(2); 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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant did not demonstrate irreparable harm if removal was not granted.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant removal was not justified.
From the decision · page 2We agree with the WCJ that the arguments defendant made in its Petition can be made at trial. Thus, defendant has failed to demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm or that Reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. For these reasons, we deny removal.
Arguments defendant made in Petition for Removal can be made at trial.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Indicates reconsideration is an adequate remedy, negating need for removal.
From the decision · page 2We agree with the WCJ that the arguments defendant made in its Petition can be made at trial. Thus, defendant has failed to demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm or that Reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. For these reasons, we deny removal.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)(1)-(2)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
Applied to deny removal because defendant failed to show irreparable harm or inadequacy of reconsideration remedy.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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, § 10955(a)(1)-(2); 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 same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.