What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration/removal deniedp. 5
Petition for reconsideration/removal filed and denied by the Appeals Board panel
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 Appeals Board panel found the petition was timely filed and that the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
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 the petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 24, 2026, and the petition was acted upon within the 60-day period ending August 24, 2026.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the timeliness of the petition for reconsideration, supporting denial of the petition.
From the decision · page 2Under Labor Code section 5909(a) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 24, 2026, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, August 23, 2026. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, August 24, 2026. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).) 1 This decision is issued by or on Monday, August 24, 2026, so that we have timely 0F
The petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This justified denial of the petition for removal as an extraordinary remedy was not warranted.
From the decision · page 3However, if the petitioner challenging a hybrid decision only disputes the WCJ’s determination regarding interlocutory issues, then the Appeals Board will evaluate the issues raised by the petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions. Here, the WCJ’s decision includes a finding regarding a threshold issue. Accordingly, the WCJ’s decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.) Removal 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 significant 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
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The case was transmitted on June 24, 2026, and the decision was issued on August 24, 2026, within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 1DISCUSSION I. Up through July 1, 2024, petitions for reconsideration were subject to former Labor Code section 5909, which provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) During the period from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026, petitions for reconsideration were subject to former Labor Code section 5909, which stated in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b)
If the last day to act falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline extends to the next business day.
The 60-day deadline fell on Sunday, August 23, 2026, so the deadline was extended to Monday, August 24, 2026, the date of decision issuance.
From the decision · page 2Under Labor Code section 5909(a) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 24, 2026, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, August 23, 2026. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, August 24, 2026. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).) 1 This decision is issued by or on Monday, August 24, 2026, so that we have timely 0F
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate.
The petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.
From the decision · page 3However, if the petitioner challenging a hybrid decision only disputes the WCJ’s determination regarding interlocutory issues, then the Appeals Board will evaluate the issues raised by the petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions. Here, the WCJ’s decision includes a finding regarding a threshold issue. Accordingly, the WCJ’s decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.) Removal 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 significant 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
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.