ADJ19890995 · July 31, 2026

Removal granted because petitioner showed substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy; WCJ disqualified due to conflict as in Gaines en banc decision; OSA rescinded and case returned for reassignment and adequacy review.

From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release (OSA) issued on April 21, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant contends that the OSA exceeds the scope of permissible settlement review and that sufficient information has already been provided to determine adequacy. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ has not filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report). We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal. Based on our review of the record and pursuant to the en banc decision in Gaines, et. al., v. ABM Aviation, Inc., et. al. (2026) 91 Cal.Comp.Cases ___; 2026 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 32 (Appeals Board en banc), we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the April 21, 2026 OSA, order that the WCJ in this matter is disqualified, and return this matter to the presiding judge who may reassign it to another trial level judge who may then conduct adequacy review of the proposed settlement and create a record supporting the decision on adequacy. 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. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70

WCJ Karinneh Aslanian was disqualified from further proceedings due to conflict as in Gaines en banc decision

Favours Applicant prevailed

This disqualification required rescinding the OSA and returning the case for reassignment and adequacy review, favoring the applicant

From the decision · page 2Thus, the result reached in Gaines applies equally to this case. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s petition for removal and as our Decision After Removal, we rescind the April 21, 2026 OSA, and return this matter to the presiding judge so that the matter may be reassigned to another trial level judge who may then conduct adequacy review of the proposed settlement and create a record supporting the decision on adequacy. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Removal from the Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release issued on April 21, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Removal of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the Order Suspending Action on Compromise and Release issued on April 21, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge is RESCINDED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on motion of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, WCJ Karinneh Aslanian is DISQUALIFIED from further proceedings in this matter.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate remedy

Applied to grant removal petition

From the decision · page 2Cal.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).) Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ’s decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.) Here, the WCJ is the same WCJ who was subject to disqualification in the recent en banc decision in Gaines and the reasons for disqualification and rescinding the OSA in this case are the same for each of the cases discussed in Gaines.

WCJ disqualification due to conflict as in Gaines en banc decision

From the decision · page 2Cal.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).) Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ’s decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.) Here, the WCJ is the same WCJ who was subject to disqualification in the recent en banc decision in Gaines and the reasons for disqualification and rescinding the OSA in this case are the same for each of the cases discussed in Gaines.