ADJ18902547 · July 27, 2026

The WCJ found EORs relevant to market rate and sufficient evidence was submitted to establish market rate; the Appeals Board found no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to defendant and upheld these findings.

From the decision · page 11It is unclear what this issue by petitioner corresponds to. The relevant rule is as follows: Market rate is defined as the amount an interpreter has actually been paid for recent interpreter services provided in connection with the preparation and resolution of an employee's claim (CCR 9795.1(e)). Here, Finding and Order number 4 included the following: Explanations of reviews for invoicing regarding contracted interpreter services may be relevant to market rate alleged by cost petitioner. There is a possibility that it is relevant to an amount an interpreter has actually been paid for recent interpreter services in connection with preparation and resolution of employee’s claim. Again, public policy favors liberal pre-trial discovery.

The petition was labeled as a Petition for Removal but included final orders subject to reconsideration; thus, it was treated as a Petition for Reconsideration and denied because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

From the decision · page 5662.) Failure to timely petition for reconsideration of a final decision bars later challenge to the propriety of the decision before the WCAB or court of appeal. (See Lab. Code, § 5904.) Alternatively, non-final decisions may later be challenged by a petition for reconsideration once a final decision issues. A decision issued by the Appeals Board may address a hybrid of both threshold and interlocutory issues. If a party challenges a hybrid decision, the petition seeking relief is treated as a petition for reconsideration because the decision resolves a threshold issue. However, if the petitioner challenging a hybrid decision only disputes the WCJ’s determination regarding interlocutory issues, then the Appeals Board will evaluate the issues raised by the petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions. Here, the April 22, 2026, F&A includes interlocutory findings 2 and final findings, including that cost petitioner was awarded sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees. Thus, the WCJ’s decision is subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Based on our review, we concur with the WCJ’s decision, and we do not disturb it. Accordingly, we treat defendant’s Petition for Removal as a Petition for Reconsideration, and deny it as a Petition for Reconsideration.

The WCJ awarded sanctions in the form of attorney fees, but the Appeals Board found no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to defendant and upheld the award.

From the decision · page 10This WCALJ awarded sanctions in the form of attorney fees pursuant to CCR 10421, CCR 10545, and Labor Code 5813. It was determined that the defendant failed to comply with CCR 9795.4 in which the language states that defendant shall pay within 60 days of receipt of billing or object. Neither was done. The failure to perform a mandatory action appears willful. Petitioner did not show irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

The Petition for Removal was timely filed and served on May 18, 2026, but was treated as a Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order included final findings subject to reconsideration.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This procedural posture determined the applicable standard and led to denial of the petition.

From the decision · page 5662.) Failure to timely petition for reconsideration of a final decision bars later challenge to the propriety of the decision before the WCAB or court of appeal. (See Lab. Code, § 5904.) Alternatively, non-final decisions may later be challenged by a petition for reconsideration once a final decision issues. A decision issued by the Appeals Board may address a hybrid of both threshold and interlocutory issues. If a party challenges a hybrid decision, the petition seeking relief is treated as a petition for reconsideration because the decision resolves a threshold issue. However, if the petitioner challenging a hybrid decision only disputes the WCJ’s determination regarding interlocutory issues, then the Appeals Board will evaluate the issues raised by the petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions. Here, the April 22, 2026, F&A includes interlocutory findings 2 and final findings, including that cost petitioner was awarded sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees. Thus, the WCJ’s decision is subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Based on our review, we concur with the WCJ’s decision, and we do not disturb it. Accordingly, we treat defendant’s Petition for Removal as a Petition for Reconsideration, and deny it as a Petition for Reconsideration.

Service of the Report and Recommendation on May 28, 2026, provided actual notice to parties and commenced the 60-day period for Appeals Board action on the petition.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Ensured procedural compliance with Labor Code section 5909 and supported denial of removal petition.

From the decision · page 4Section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall be notice of transmission. Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on May 28, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on May 28, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on May 28, 2026.

The defendant failed to show irreparable harm or significant prejudice from the challenged orders, including sanctions and market rate findings.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of demonstrated harm justified denial of removal and upheld WCJ findings.

From the decision · page 9Petitioner has not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. After the Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision issued, this matter was set for a status conference on June 29, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. on the issue of attorney fees awarded and status of resolution of same. As this is a petition for removal the matter should still be able to proceed with that hearing and absent settlement or granting petition for removal, the case should proceed.

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

Service of the Report and Recommendation constitutes notice of transmission, starting the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 4Section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall be notice of transmission. Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on May 28, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on May 28, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on May 28, 2026.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm; reconsideration is an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 9Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)

Service of the Report and Recommendation on May 28, 2026, provided actual notice of transmission to the parties, commencing the 60-day period for Appeals Board action on the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 4Section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall be notice of transmission. Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on May 28, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on May 28, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on May 28, 2026.