What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petition for Removal denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney challenging an Order taking the matter off calendar; WCJ recommended dismissal of the Petition as the Order was non-final and denial of Petition for Removal due to failure to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 5, 2024.
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 dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order, which is not subject to reconsideration, and denied removal because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.
From the decision · page 7Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as applicant seeks reconsideration of a non-final order taking this matter off calendar. We treat the petition as one seeking removal and deny removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order and thus not subject to reconsideration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because petitions for reconsideration may only be taken from final orders, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition.
Applicant's attorney failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure justified denial of the petition for removal, as removal requires showing irreparable harm or substantial prejudice.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg. (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462, 475 (En Banc)
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a final order, decision, or award.
The Appeals Board applied this standard to dismiss the petition for reconsideration of a non-final order.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(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
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
The Appeals Board applied this standard to deny the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 6III. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).) Whether to bifurcate an issue for trial is within the discretion of the WCJ, who may order bifurcation upon a showing of good cause.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's attorney failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, significant prejudice, or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
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.