What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal dismissed as impermissibly successive.
applicant seeks removal of the Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Removal issued by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on July 20, 2022, which denied his prior petitions for removal and disqualification of WCJ Diana Marsteiner.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 20, 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.
The Petition for Removal was dismissed as impermissibly successive because it raised the same contentions and grounds as prior petitions without new evidence or rationale.
From the decision · page 4Applicant's Petition for Removal is impermissibly successive. (See Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 287, 293 (Crowe Glass), and Navarro v. A&A Farming (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299 (Appeal Bd. en banc) (Navarro).) In other words, no party may file a successive petition alleging the same facts and the same law as was already determined by the Appeals Board. (Ibid.) The Court in Crowe Glass explained that,
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's Petition for Removal raised the same contentions and grounds as prior petitions without presenting new or additional evidence or new rationale.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact led to dismissal of the Petition for Removal as impermissibly successive under established case law.
From the decision · page 4Here, applicant seeks removal of the July 2022 Opinion based on the same contentions and grounds raised in his August 16, 2021 petition for removal, and in his April 30, 2021 Petition for Disqualification. Applicant presents counter-arguments to the legal and factual conclusions already determined by the Appeals Board in the 2022 Opinion and the August 2021 Opinion. There is no new or additional evidence, nor any new rationale not previously raised.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 287, 293; Navarro v. A&A Farming (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Mazzanti) (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 22, 25; Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158
No party may file a successive petition alleging the same facts and law as already determined by the Appeals Board, except when based on new evidence or new rationale.
The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as impermissibly successive because it raised the same contentions and grounds as prior petitions without new evidence or rationale.
From the decision · page 4Applicant's Petition for Removal is impermissibly successive. (See Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 287, 293 (Crowe Glass), and Navarro v. A&A Farming (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299 (Appeal Bd. en banc) (Navarro).) In other words, no party may file a successive petition alleging the same facts and the same law as was already determined by the Appeals Board. (Ibid.) The Court in Crowe Glass explained that,
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.