What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied.
Petition for removal from the Order Rejecting Applications for Adjudication of Claim issued by the WCJ was filed by applicant and denied by the WCAB panel.
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 petitioner failed to comply with the vexatious litigant pre-filing order and did not obtain permission to file new applications, so removal was denied because substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not shown and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the "Order Rejecting Applications for Adjudication of Claim" issued on July 26, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ rejected multiple applications for adjudication because applicant has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre-filing order, and that applicant failed to seek permission to file the new applications pursuant to the pre-filing order.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant and subject to a pre-filing order issued on November 10, 2022.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This pre-filing order required applicant to obtain permission before filing new applications, which applicant failed to do.
From the decision · page 3Here, applicant failed to abide by the vexatious litigant order issued on November 10, 2022. The WCJ correctly refused applicant's filings for failure to comply and request permission before filing. Accordingly, 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); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
The WCJ's analysis showed no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was adequate, so removal was denied.
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, 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, 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.
WCAB Rule 10430(d)
A presiding WCJ or the Appeals Board may enter a pre-filing order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing without leave.
Applicant failed to obtain leave before filing new applications, violating the pre-filing order.
From the decision · page 2Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10430(d): (d) If a party is declared to be a vexatious litigant, a presiding workers' compensation judge or the Appeals Board may enter a "prefiling order," i.e., an order which prohibits the vexatious litigant from filing, in propria persona, any Application for Adjudication of Claim, Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, petition or other request for action by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board without first obtaining leave of the presiding workers' compensation judge of the district office where the request for action is proposed to be filed or, if the matter is pending before the Appeals Board on a petition for reconsideration, removal or disqualification, without first obtaining leave from the Appeals Board. For purposes of this rule, a "petition" shall include, but not be limited to, a petition to reopen under Labor Code sections 5410, 5803 and 5804, a petition to enforce a medical treatment award, a penalty petition or any other petition seeking to enforce or expand the vexatious litigant's previously determined rights.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant failed to comply with the vexatious litigant pre-filing order issued on November 10, 2022, by filing without permission.
From the decision · page 3Here, applicant failed to abide by the vexatious litigant order issued on November 10, 2022. The WCJ correctly refused applicant's filings for failure to comply and request permission before filing. Accordingly, we deny removal.
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.