What the panel ordered
Petition for removal dismissed as untimely; would have been denied on the merits for lack of pending issues.
Applicant petitioned for removal of an Order Taking Off Calendar (OTOC) issued April 13, 2023; the WCJ recommended dismissal as untimely and for lack of pending issues.
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.
No issues were pending within WCAB jurisdiction at the time of the OTOC; applicant did not identify any specific denial or delay of benefits, and all parties concurred to take the case off calendar.
From the decision · page 3The Applicant contends that the case was set for hearing on April 13, 2023, and should not have been taken off calendar, thus leading to an unjust outcome. The undersigned has some recollection of discussing the matter with Applicant and the defense attorney at the hearing and that future medical care would be provided pursuant to... the Award and that defense attorney was unaware of any triable issues at that time. According to the Minutes of Hearing dated April 13, 2023 (EAMS DOCUMENT ID NUMBER 76634753), the handling defense attorney counsel had moved law firms and did not transfer this case with him, so a new attorney would be assigned to Applicant's case. There were no issues pending within the WCAB jurisdiction at the time. There was nothing specific pointed to that was being denied or delayed, and it appeared that Applicant understood and had no objection to the case going off calendar at that time. In fact, the Applicant agreed to a joint off-calendar.... Neither of the issues raised by Applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed dated April 5, 2023 were triable issues at this point in time, and so there was no argument made at the time of hearing for the case to be set for trial or even to be continued. There was no discussion of fraud or misrepresentation.