What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted; WCJ's Order relieving Ratto Law as counsel rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
Petition for Removal filed by applicant in response to WCJ's Order relieving Ratto Law as counsel
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 WCJ's Order relieving counsel was issued prematurely in violation of procedural rules, denying due process and a proper hearing; thus, the Board granted removal and rescinded the Order.
From the decision · page 5Here, we need not reach the issue of whether the February 22, 2024 Order relieving applicant's counsel as attorney of record was based upon good cause, as the Order granting Ratto Law's petition was issued prematurely in violation of WCAB Rule 10605(a) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a).) Such violation renders the Order void ab initio. 3
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Order relieving counsel issued prematurely before expiration of objection period
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural violation rendered the Order void ab initio and justified removal
From the decision · page 5The notice of intent to relieve applicant's counsel was served on the parties by subservice on February 16, 2024. The notice provided ten days upon which to lodge an objection, yet the Order granting the petition to relieve counsel of record issued six days later, or on February 22, 2024, which is prior to expiration of either the 15-day period or 20-day period after service of the Order.4
Applicant voiced objection at hearing despite no written objection filed
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant's verbal objection raised due process concerns requiring a hearing
From the decision · page 3WCJ issued the Order. However, he did in fact, voice an objection to the withdrawal of his
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)
Petition for removal requires showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and inadequacy of reconsideration as remedy
Applied to determine whether removal was warranted
From the decision · page 6Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cortez) (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kleemann) (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).)
Lab. Code, 5313
WCJ must prepare findings of fact and summary of evidence to enable meaningful review
Applied to require proper record and findings for counsel removal order
From the decision · page 6An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Section 5313 requires that together with findings of fact, orders, and/or awards, a WCJ "shall" serve "a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313; see Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (Blackledge) (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22.) The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton, supra, 66
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10605(a)
Order relieving counsel must comply with timing and notice requirements under WCAB Rule 10605(a)
Order was void ab initio due to premature issuance
From the decision · page 5Here, we need not reach the issue of whether the February 22, 2024 Order relieving applicant's counsel as attorney of record was based upon good cause, as the Order granting Ratto Law's petition was issued prematurely in violation of WCAB Rule 10605(a) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a).) Such violation renders the Order void ab initio. 3
Code Civ. Proc. 284
Order relieving counsel requires court order after application and notice (Code Civ. Proc. 284)
Applied to confirm procedural requirements for counsel removal
From the decision · page 32. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's verbal objection to dismissal of counsel at hearing despite no written objection filed
From the decision · page 3WCJ issued the Order. However, he did in fact, voice an objection to the withdrawal of his
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.