What the panel ordered
Denied defendant's third Petition for Removal of the WCJ's April 13, 2021 Order Setting Case for Mandatory Settlement Conference After Removal Reg 10955(d).
Defendant filed three Petitions for Removal challenging various WCJ orders; the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the third Petition; the WCAB panel reviewed and decided on the third Petition for 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.
The WCAB found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the Petition for Removal.
From the decision · page 2With respect to defendant's third Petition, we will deny the Petition. 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, 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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ took action to resolve the issues raised in defendant's first and second Petitions, leading to their automatic dismissal.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural action negated the need for further Appeals Board intervention on those Petitions.
From the decision · page 2With respect to defendant's first and second Petitions, the WCJ took action to resolve the issues raised in these Petitions per WCAB Rule 10955(d), including rescinding the April 2, 2021 Order. Therefore, these Petitions are deemed automatically dismissed with no further action required by the Appeals Board to address them.
The defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure led to denial of the third Petition for Removal.
From the decision · page 2With respect to defendant's third Petition, we will deny the Petition. 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, 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 rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; it is granted only if the petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found defendant did not meet the burden to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 2With respect to defendant's third Petition, we will deny the Petition. 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, 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.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Multiple filings regarding the same or similar issues expend judicial resources and give rise to the appearance of bad faith or frivolous tactics.
From the decision · page 2In the span of approximately one month, defendant filed three Petitions for Removal in this matter. Multiple filings regarding the same or similar issues expend precious judicial resources and give rise to the appearance of bad faith actions or frivolous tactics. We caution defendant to exercise restraint in the future before seeking judicial intervention or risk the imposition of
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.