What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; WCJ's order taking the case off calendar rescinded; matter returned for status conference and further proceedings.
Applicant sought removal after the WCJ took the case off calendar at the April 25, 2024 MSC; the Appeals Board reviewed the WCJ's report and the petition for 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.
Removal is warranted because the WCJ took the case off calendar without making a record or providing a basis for the decision, resulting in substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to applicant; the record was inadequate to support the order.
From the decision · page 4Absent same, we are unable to determine if good cause to take the case off calendar exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the calendar for a status conference for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ took the case off calendar without making a record or providing a basis for the decision.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of record and reasoning resulted in substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to applicant, justifying removal and rescission of the order.
From the decision · page 4Absent same, we are unable to determine if good cause to take the case off calendar exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the calendar for a status conference for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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)
Removal is granted only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to determine whether the WCJ's order taking the case off calendar warranted removal.
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 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
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidence was offered, identified, or admitted at the hearing, and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence relied upon.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ does not discuss the reasoning for his decision. Additionally, no evidence was offered, identified, or admitted at the hearing, and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence he relied upon in making his decision.
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.