ADJ6788916 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal denied.

Joint petition for removal filed by applicants in five cases after WCJ denied requests to set matters on non-OD-Legal block days and to terminate all OD-Legal Block days at Oakland District Office; WCJ found lack of authority to grant relief.

Read the official decision →

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

Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices by WCAB Rules; petitioners sought a remedy not permitted under the rules and failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

From the decision · page 3Here, petitioners seek intervention from the Appeals Board with respect to scheduling of hearings. As stated above, scheduling of hearings has been delegated to the district offices by way of the WCAB Rules. Moreover, petitioners seek a remedy based on the pleadings that they have submitted, which is not permitted under the WCAB Rules. Moreover, no record has been created that we would enable us to meaningfully address the merits of their arguments.

The facts that decided it

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

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)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; will be granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.

Petitioners did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

From the decision · page 2Removal 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, § 10346(a)

Presiding WCJ has full responsibility for assignment of cases to WCJs of each office.

Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices.

From the decision · page 2While the Appeals Board has the ultimate statutory authority to regulate the adjudication process, with respect to the scheduling of hearings, through the WCAB Rules, the Appeals Board delegates authority to the district office. Specifically, WCAB Rule 10346(a) states that: "(a) The presiding workers' compensation judge has full responsibility for the assignment of cases to the workers' compensation judges of each office and may utilize EAMS to assign cases." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10346(a).)

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515

Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted.

Petitioners sought a remedy based on pleadings, which is not permitted.

From the decision · page 3WCAB Rule 10515 states that: "Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.)

ADJ6788916 · October 22, 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

About this page