What the panel ordered
Petition for removal dismissed.
Petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 19, 2024, by the WCJ.
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.
Applicant failed to state grounds for removal and did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar. The WCJ's order was proper and removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on August 19, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's petition did not indicate any proper basis for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without a proper basis, removal cannot be granted, leading to dismissal of the petition.
From the decision · page 1The Petition does not indicate any proper basis upon which applicant seeks removal. The Petition includes an attachment, which contains numerous and varied complaints as to events that are alleged to have transpired in this case. However, the attachment fails to explain how any of these complaints are connected with the WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar. Without such argument, the petition fails to state grounds upon which removal can be granted, and thus, the petition will be dismissed.
Applicant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Removal requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which applicant did not demonstrate, supporting dismissal.
From the decision · page 1However, even if we were to analyze applicant's petition on the merits, we would otherwise deny the petition as applicant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the
Applicant has a remedy to file for another hearing to raise complaints, so removal is not necessary.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Availability of an adequate remedy through another hearing negates the need for removal, supporting dismissal.
From the decision · page 2Here, and as noted by the WCJ, applicant has a simple remedy in that he may file for another hearing so that he can raise the multiple complaints alleged in the petition for removal. However, applicant needs to participate in any subsequent hearing in good faith, which may require applicant to complete a pre-trial conference statement. Applicant may seek out the Information and Assistance officer for information on how to obtain a hearing and how to complete a pre-trial conference statement on any issues that applicant may wish to raise.
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, 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted.
The Board applied this standard to deny the petition for removal because the applicant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar.
From the decision · page 1However, even if we were to analyze applicant's petition on the merits, we would otherwise deny the petition as applicant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the
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.