Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board
The petition was dismissed as untimely because the decision was issued on the 60th day after transmission.
From the decision · page 2I.
Former Labor Code section1 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:
(a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board
unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the
appeals board.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate
The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was adequate.
From the decision · page 4Cal.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); Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Additionally, 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).)
Lab. Code, 3600(a)
Injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) requires proof by preponderance of evidence
Applicant bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by preponderance of evidence in absence of presumption.
From the decision · page 6In the absence of a presumption, applicant bears the burden of proving injury arising out
of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast
Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80
Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a); 3202.5.)
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 742
Medical evidence must show it is more likely the disease was acquired at work or employment subjected employee to special risk exceeding general population
The QME's opinion met the Bethlehem Steel standard for industrial causation by reasonable medical probability.
From the decision · page 6In cases where the injury is caused by a communicable disease such as COVID-19, medical
evidence is required to establish industrial causation by demonstrating that it is more likely that
the injured worker acquired the disease at work or that the employment subjected the employee to
a special risk of exposure in excess of that of the general population. (Bethlehem Steel Co. v.
Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 742 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 61].)