What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed and Petition for Removal denied
Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Removal filed and considered by the Appeals Board based on the WCJ's Report and analysis
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 reconsideration was dismissed because the WCJ's decision was not a final order determining substantive rights or a threshold issue, and the petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration and deny it to the extent it seeks removal.1
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's decision resolved only intermediate procedural or evidentiary issues and did not determine any substantive right or threshold issue.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This meant the decision was not final, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's decision solely resolves an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue or issues. The decision does not determine any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and the petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
The petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and did not prove that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This led to denial of the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 2We will also deny the petition to the extent it seeks removal. 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 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).) Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The WCJ's decision was not a final order as it did not determine substantive rights or a threshold issue, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, so the petition for removal was denied.
From the decision · page 2We will also deny the petition to the extent it seeks removal. 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 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).) Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10421, 10759, 10787, 10803
A willful failure to comply with an order could subject the offending party to sanctions.
The parties were reminded that failure to comply with orders could lead to sanctions, but the issue of sanctions was deferred to the trial in the case in chief.
From the decision · page 3prescribed and approved by the Appeals Board and shall be served on the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10759(b), (e) (amended as of January 1, 2022.) Here a WCJ issued an order at the May 3, 2022 mandatory settlement conference, which states that: "Parties are to file PTCS in 20 days." The matter was then set for trial on June 27, 2022, before a different WCJ. The parties appeared, but due to ongoing settlement negotiations, trial was continued to August 24, 2022. Yet, when the parties appeared on August 24, 2022, applicant had not yet participated in preparing the PTCS. All parties are expected to comply with orders by a WCJ and by the Appeals Board, and if they are unable to comply, they must seek the appropriate relief. Parties are reminded that a willful failure to comply with an order could subject the offending party to sanctions. (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) With respect to the notice of intention issued by the WCJ on August 30, 2022, the issue of sanctions may properly be heard at the time of trial in the case in chief, and a record can be created. (See Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc) [decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record"]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787, 10803.)
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.