ADJ19889304 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal denied

Petition for removal from order vacating trial and setting mandatory settlement conference filed by applicant

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and held reconsideration would be an adequate remedy; the WCJ had discretion to continue the trial due to lack of exhibits and no abuse of discretion was shown.

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 and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant's counsel filed multiple petitions for removal causing delay and possible frivolous filings

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if not granted

The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be adequate.

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., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate

Lab. Code, 5700

The hearing on the application may be adjourned in the discretion of the appeals board or the workers' compensation judge

The WCJ had discretion to continue the trial due to no exhibits filed and no abuse of discretion was shown.

From the decision · page 2Next, contrary to applicant's assertion, can we find no Labor Code provision that endows a party with the unilateral right to proceed to trial upon the filing of a declaration of readiness (DOR). To the contrary, the Labor Code is quite clear that the WCJ and the Appeals Board have discretion when setting a matter for trial: "The hearing on the application may be adjourned from time to time and from place to place in the discretion of the appeals board or the workers' compensation judge holding the hearing." (Lab. Code, § 5700.) There may be other cases where a WCJ abuses their discretion in continuing matters, but no abuse of discretion was shown here.

ADJ19889304 · December 31, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page