What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied by WCAB panel
Petition for removal from order denying petition for automatic reassignment filed by applicant and denied by WCJ as untimely; appeal to 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 WCJ and WCAB panel found the petition for removal was not timely filed under WCAB Rule 10788 and that the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order denying petition for automatic reassignment issued on March 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied applicant's request for automatic reassignment because it was not timely.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Notice of Hearing was issued on February 27, 2026.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the start of the 5-day period for filing a petition for automatic reassignment under WCAB Rule 10788, which the petitioner did not meet.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ correctly notes that the Notice of Hearing was issued by the District Office on February 27, 2026. Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10788:
Petition for removal was filed on March 20, 2026, which was beyond the 5-day limit after notice of hearing.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lateness meant the petition was untimely and subject to denial.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order denying petition for automatic reassignment issued on March 20, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied applicant's request for automatic reassignment because it was not timely.
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
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate remedy.
The WCJ and WCAB panel applied this standard to deny removal because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was 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 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).)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10788
To exercise the right to automatic reassignment, a party must file a petition requesting reassignment not more than 5 days after receipt of the notice of trial or expedited hearing.
The WCJ and WCAB panel applied this rule to find the petition was untimely because the notice of hearing was issued on February 27, 2026, and the petition was filed on March 20, 2026, beyond the 5-day limit.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ correctly notes that the Notice of Hearing was issued by the District Office on February 27, 2026. Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10788:
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.