What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied; the matter will proceed to trial as ordered by the WCJ.
Defendant petitioned for removal from the WCJ's order setting the matter for trial after a mandatory settlement conference; the WCJ recommended denial of removal.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 9, 2024, June 6, 2022.
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.
Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; the parties' failure to complete the PTCS was invited error or waived, and the PTCS was ultimately filed, rendering the issue moot.
From the decision · page 3Accordingly, we deny removal. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on January 8, 2025, by the WCJ is DENIED.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The parties filed a PTCS on January 8, 2025, listing the issues to be tried, making defendant's argument moot.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This resolved the procedural defect defendant complained of, so removal was not warranted.
From the decision · page 3Furthermore, the parties filed a PTCS on January 8, 2025, listing the issues to be tried. Thus, it would also appear that defendant's argument is now moot.
The parties' failure to complete a PTCS on the day of the hearing was invited error and/or waived by defendant.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Defendant could not claim prejudice from a defect it caused or accepted.
From the decision · page 2the hearing and where one of the parties openly challenges the WCJ's directive to complete a PTCS and list the issues for trial, the policy of workers' compensation is to accomplish substantial justice expeditiously. Thus, we understand why the WCJ crafted a remedy of setting the matter for trial while permitting the parties to file a PTCS within 10 days of the MSC. In this case, it appears that the parties' failure to complete a PTCS on the day of the hearing was invited error and/or waived by defendant.
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 granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The Board found defendant did not meet this standard, as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown 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
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The parties filed a PTCS on January 8, 2025, listing the issues to be tried, making defendant's argument moot.
From the decision · page 3Furthermore, the parties filed a PTCS on January 8, 2025, listing the issues to be tried. Thus, it would also appear that defendant's argument is now moot.
The parties' failure to complete a PTCS on the day of the hearing was invited error and/or waived by defendant.
From the decision · page 2the hearing and where one of the parties openly challenges the WCJ's directive to complete a PTCS and list the issues for trial, the policy of workers' compensation is to accomplish substantial justice expeditiously. Thus, we understand why the WCJ crafted a remedy of setting the matter for trial while permitting the parties to file a PTCS within 10 days of the MSC. In this case, it appears that the parties' failure to complete a PTCS on the day of the hearing was invited error and/or waived by defendant.
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.