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).