Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if the petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found the petitioner did not meet the burden to justify removal.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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. The emails between defense attorney and the office of Raye Bellinger, M.D., regarding
the deposition date were administrative and, therefore, not grounds to replace the doctor. (Alvarez
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 575, 590 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 817] ("an
ex parte communication may be so insignificant and inconsequential that any resulting
repercussion would be unreasonable.")