What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal denied by the Appeals Board panel.
Petition for Removal filed by defendant in response to WCJ order at Mandatory Settlement Conference taking matter off calendar over defendant's objection.
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.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ order or that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ order at Mandatory Settlement Conference took matter off calendar over defendant's objection.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This order prompted defendant's petition for removal, which was denied because the order did not cause substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal in response to a July 27, 2023 order issued by the WCJ at Mandatory Settlement Conference, taking the matter off calendar over defendant's objection. The Minutes reflect that the "[vocational rehabilitation] report needs to be reviewed by AME/PQMEs;
Employers are generally responsible for costs of medical-legal evaluations under the Labor Code.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact negated defendant's claim of irreparable harm from costs related to vocational reporting and medical-legal evaluations.
From the decision · page 2parties are encouraged to meet and confer regarding discovery plan." (Minutes of Hearing, July 27, 2023.) Defendant contends it will suffer irreparable harm arising out of the delay and expense of submitting the vocational reporting to the evaluating physicians. However, as the WCJ notes in her Report, "[e]mployers are generally responsible for the costs of medical-legal evaluations pursuant to the Labor Code... [d]efendant is consequently not irreparably harmed by its liability for the cost of potential additional medical-legal evaluations... [t]hat cost is part of the medical-legal expenses that defendant is obligated to pay under the Labor Code." (Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report), August 22, 2023, p. 2.)
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 an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
Petitioner failed to meet this standard as explained in the WCJ report and Appeals Board opinion.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
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.