What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; August 4, 2025 order to appear in-person rescinded and substituted with order allowing remote appearance
Petition for removal from order to appear in-person filed by applicant, WCJ recommended denial, Appeals Board granted removal
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 found that the order to appear in-person was legally incorrect and would cause irreparable harm if not removed, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.
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 substantial 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, and based upon the analysis below, an order to appear in-person would appear both legally incorrect and would not be reparable if the matter proceeded to reconsideration. Thus, we will grant removal.