What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied by the Appeals Board panel.
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the Order Limiting Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the WCJ on October 3, 2025.
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 denied removal because defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
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 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to establish relevancy of non-orthopedic medical records to the orthopedic injury claim.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure meant the Appeals Board was not persuaded that removal was necessary to prevent substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 2Here, defendant suggests that discovery of information unrelated to orthopedic injury is relevant. However, defendant has not made any offer of proof as to the relevancy of this information. No record exists upon which we can decide relevancy. The WCJ maintains jurisdiction over discovery in this matter. If defendant requires a hearing to present evidence or testimony, defendant may petition the court to either set aside or otherwise modify the current discovery order and request a hearing on the issue. Defendant may then create a record establishing the relevance of the information requested. On the record before us, it does not appear that non- orthopedic medical records are relevant to an orthopedic injury claim.
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 and is granted only if 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 Appeals Board applied this standard and found defendant did not meet the burden to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
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 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant did not provide any offer of proof or record establishing relevancy of non-orthopedic medical records to the claim.
From the decision · page 2Here, defendant suggests that discovery of information unrelated to orthopedic injury is relevant. However, defendant has not made any offer of proof as to the relevancy of this information. No record exists upon which we can decide relevancy. The WCJ maintains jurisdiction over discovery in this matter. If defendant requires a hearing to present evidence or testimony, defendant may petition the court to either set aside or otherwise modify the current discovery order and request a hearing on the issue. Defendant may then create a record establishing the relevance of the information requested. On the record before us, it does not appear that non- orthopedic medical records are relevant to an orthopedic injury claim.
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.