ADJ14424722 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration denied

Petition for reconsideration filed and denied by the Appeals Board panel

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909 and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, thus denying the petition.

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 the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on August 26, 2024, and the petition for reconsideration was acted upon within the 60-day period ending October 25, 2024.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period to deny the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 1Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.

The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 3Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

ADJ14424722 · October 22, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

About this page