Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5; Kleeman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2
Removal is discretionary and generally employed only as an extraordinary remedy upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and a showing that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
The Board applied this standard to deny the Petition for Removal as the applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 4Removal may be requested to challenge interim and non-final orders issued by a WCJ.
(Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [38 Cal. Rptr. 3d
922, 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleeman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) Removal is discretionary and
is generally employed only as an extraordinary remedy upon a showing of substantial prejudice or
irreparable harm and a showing that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final
decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006)
136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 922, 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5];
Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 272, 281, fn. 2 [70
Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].)
Labor Code section 5502(d)(3)
Section 5502(d)(3) bars the admission of evidence not disclosed at the MSC unless it was unavailable or could not have been discovered through due diligence beforehand.
Applicant contended that the defendant's witness was not disclosed before the MSC and thus barred under this section, but the Board found no prejudice from allowing the testimony.