What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal denied by the Appeals Board
Petition for Removal filed by defendant in response to WCJ order denying additional discovery and setting case for trial
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 Appeals Board denied removal because defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.
From the decision · page 2substantial 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of defendant's arguments, 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 defendant.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant's current counsel needs additional time to review the case file and determine if a deposition of the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator is required.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Defendant argued this need would cause substantial prejudice and irreparable harm if removal was not granted, but the Appeals Board found otherwise.
From the decision · page 1Defendant asserts that the setting of trial will cause it to suffer substantial prejudice and irreparable harm as defendant's current counsel needs additional time to review the case file and to determine whether a deposition of the case's Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator may be required.
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 [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]
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; it will grant removal only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found defendant did not meet the burden to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 1Removal 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
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.