What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the November 6, 2025 orders, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to create a record.
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the WCJ's November 6, 2025 orders granting continuance and denying defendant's petition for a protective order, which the WCJ issued without creating a record.
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.
Removal was granted because the WCJ issued orders without creating a record, violating due process and causing irreparable harm to the defendant.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the November 6, 2025 orders granting continuance and denying defendant's petition for a protective order and return this matter to the trial level to create a record.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ issued orders granting continuance and denying defendant's petition for a protective order without creating a record.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This violated the parties' right to due process and constituted irreparable harm to the defendant, justifying removal.
From the decision · page 2tit. 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, the WCJ denied defendant's petition for a protective order without creating a record and thus, the order violates the parties' right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case.
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); Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Removal was granted because the WCJ's orders violated due process by not creating a record, causing irreparable harm to the defendant.
From the decision · page 1Removal 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.,
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The WCJ denied defendant's petition for a protective order without creating a record, violating due process rights.
From the decision · page 2tit. 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, the WCJ denied defendant's petition for a protective order without creating a record and thus, the order violates the parties' right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case.
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.