What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; August 4, 2025 order to appear in-person rescinded and substituted with order allowing remote appearance
Petition for removal from order to appear in-person filed by applicant, WCJ recommended denial, Appeals Board granted 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 Appeals Board found that the order to appear in-person was legally incorrect and would cause irreparable harm if not removed, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate 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, 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, and based upon the analysis below, an order to appear in-person would appear both legally incorrect and would not be reparable if the matter proceeded to reconsideration. Thus, we will grant removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Order to appear in-person was legally incorrect and would cause irreparable harm if not removed
Favours Applicant prevailed
This justified granting removal as reconsideration would not be an adequate 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, 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, and based upon the analysis below, an order to appear in-person would appear both legally incorrect and would not be reparable if the matter proceeded to reconsideration. Thus, we will grant removal.
Order to appear was not served on witnesses, violating due process
Favours Applicant prevailed
Due process violation supported removal of the order
From the decision · page 3WCJ did not serve the order to appear upon the witnesses. Furthermore, we have no ability to serve this decision upon the witnesses listed in the C&R as they are not listed in the official address record, accordingly, we cannot order that they appear. Lastly, and assuming that applicant appears and verifies his own signature, it would appear that the witnesses testimony would be duplicative and/or moot.
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)
Removal will be granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
The Appeals Board found the in-person appearance order legally incorrect and irreparable harm would result if not removed, thus granting removal.
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, and based upon the analysis below, an order to appear in-person would appear both legally incorrect and would not be reparable if the matter proceeded to reconsideration. Thus, we will grant removal.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Order to appear in-person was not served on witnesses, violating due process; witnesses not listed in official address record so cannot be ordered to appear
From the decision · page 3WCJ did not serve the order to appear upon the witnesses. Furthermore, we have no ability to serve this decision upon the witnesses listed in the C&R as they are not listed in the official address record, accordingly, we cannot order that they appear. Lastly, and assuming that applicant appears and verifies his own signature, it would appear that the witnesses testimony would be duplicative and/or moot.
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.