What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration/Removal deniedp. 4
Petition for Reconsideration/Removal filed and denied by the Appeals Board 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 Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 10, 2026, and the decision was issued on September 8, 2026, within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timing satisfied the statutory requirement for timely action on the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 10, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is September 8, 2026. This decision is issued by or on September 8, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026). Section 5909(b)(1) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides notice to the Appeals Board. Thus, the requirement in subdivision (1) ensures that the parties are notified of the accurate date for the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on a petition.
The petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such a showing, the Appeals Board denied the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 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 rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The case was transmitted on July 10, 2026, and the decision was issued on September 8, 2026, within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 10, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is September 8, 2026. This decision is issued by or on September 8, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026). Section 5909(b)(1) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides notice to the Appeals Board. Thus, the requirement in subdivision (1) ensures that the parties are notified of the accurate date for the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on a petition.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate.
The petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 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 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.