What the panel ordered
Petition for removal deniedp. 2
Petition for removal from WCJ denied by WCAB 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 WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant if removal was denied and determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal in response to the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) June 20, 2025 Order Denying Petition for Reassignment (Order), denying applicant’s request for automatic reassignment to another WCJ. Applicant contends if automatic reassignment is not granted she will be significantly prejudiced and will suffer irreparable harm, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. We did not receive an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the Report of the WCJ with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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.,
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's analysis found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding supported the denial of the petition for removal as the petitioner did not meet the burden for removal.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal in response to the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) June 20, 2025 Order Denying Petition for Reassignment (Order), denying applicant’s request for automatic reassignment to another WCJ. Applicant contends if automatic reassignment is not granted she will be significantly prejudiced and will suffer irreparable harm, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. We did not receive an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the Report of the WCJ with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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.,
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) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; it will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
The panel applied this standard and found the petitioner did not meet the burden to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal in response to the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) June 20, 2025 Order Denying Petition for Reassignment (Order), denying applicant’s request for automatic reassignment to another WCJ. Applicant contends if automatic reassignment is not granted she will be significantly prejudiced and will suffer irreparable harm, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. We did not receive an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the Report of the WCJ with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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.,
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.