What the panel ordered
Petition for removal dismissed as successive petitionp. 2
Petition for removal from the March 13, 2026 WCAB decision
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 13, 2026, November 25, 2024, August 20, 2024, November 9, 2023.
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 was dismissed as a successive petition seeking the same relief, which is not allowed under WCAB rules and case law.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the “Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Removal” issued on March 13, 2026, by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant generally contends that decision of the Appeals Board was in error. We have not received an answer from defendant. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as the petition is a successive petition. A petitioning party cannot attack an Appeals Board decision through another petition seeking, in substance, the same relief. Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct. (See Crowe Glass Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal. App.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The petition was a successive petition seeking the same relief as a prior decision
Favours Defendant prevailed
Successive petitions are not allowed under WCAB rules and case law, leading to dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the “Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Removal” issued on March 13, 2026, by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant generally contends that decision of the Appeals Board was in error. We have not received an answer from defendant. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as the petition is a successive petition. A petitioning party cannot attack an Appeals Board decision through another petition seeking, in substance, the same relief. Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct. (See Crowe Glass Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal. App.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10430
WCAB Rule 10430
Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the “Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Removal” issued on March 13, 2026, by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant generally contends that decision of the Appeals Board was in error. We have not received an answer from defendant. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as the petition is a successive petition. A petitioning party cannot attack an Appeals Board decision through another petition seeking, in substance, the same relief. Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct. (See Crowe Glass Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal. App.
Crowe Glass Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal. App. 287
A party aggrieved by an Appeals Board decision on removal must wait until a final order issues and reraise the issue on reconsideration, or petition for a writ of review to the Court of Appeal.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the “Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Removal” issued on March 13, 2026, by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant generally contends that decision of the Appeals Board was in error. We have not received an answer from defendant. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as the petition is a successive petition. A petitioning party cannot attack an Appeals Board decision through another petition seeking, in substance, the same relief. Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct. (See Crowe Glass Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal. App.
Navarro v. A&A Farming (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299–300 (Appeals Board en banc)
Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the “Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Removal” issued on March 13, 2026, by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant generally contends that decision of the Appeals Board was in error. We have not received an answer from defendant. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as the petition is a successive petition. A petitioning party cannot attack an Appeals Board decision through another petition seeking, in substance, the same relief. Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct. (See Crowe Glass Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal. App.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Petition was a successive petition seeking the same relief as a prior decision
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the “Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Removal” issued on March 13, 2026, by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant generally contends that decision of the Appeals Board was in error. We have not received an answer from defendant. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as the petition is a successive petition. A petitioning party cannot attack an Appeals Board decision through another petition seeking, in substance, the same relief. Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct. (See Crowe Glass Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal. App.
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.