What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal from the WCJ's Findings and Orders issued on April 28, 2026.p. 3
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Orders issued on April 28, 2026, by the WCJ, which found further development of the record was warranted and ordered an additional panel in psychiatry. The WCJ filed a Report recommending denial of removal. The Appeals Board considered the petition and the WCJ's Report and denied 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 defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision was issued, thus removal was denied.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Orders issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that further development of the record was warranted and ordered and additional panel in the field of psychiatry. Defendant contends that the record does not require further development. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported the denial of the petition for removal as removal is granted only if such harm is shown.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Orders issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that further development of the record was warranted and ordered and additional panel in the field of psychiatry. Defendant contends that the record does not require further development. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn.
The defendant did not show that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy if a final adverse decision was issued.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the conclusion that removal was not necessary because reconsideration would suffice.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Orders issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that further development of the record was warranted and ordered and additional panel in the field of psychiatry. Defendant contends that the record does not require further development. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn.
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); 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. The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
The Appeals Board applied this standard to deny the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Orders issued on April 28, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that further development of the record was warranted and ordered and additional panel in the field of psychiatry. Defendant contends that the record does not require further development. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn.
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.