What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; Order Granting Change of Venue issued on October 14, 2025, rescinded; defendant's petition for change of venue denied; venue returned to Pomona District Office
Petition for removal from the Order Granting Change of Venue issued by the WCJ on October 14, 2025
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.
Applicant resides in Los Angeles County and is permitted to file the application at any district office within the county; the order changing venue to Marina del Rey was improper and would cause substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to applicant; removal is granted to rescind the order and deny defendant's petition for change of venue.
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
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant resides in Los Angeles County and filed the application at a district office within that county.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact establishes that the order changing venue to Marina del Rey was improper under Labor Code section 5501.5, favoring applicant's position.
From the decision · page 3The Appeals Board's regulation for venue is succinct: "When filing a case opening document, the filer shall designate venue and shall specify the basis for venue in accordance with Labor Code section 5501.5." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10480.) In this case applicant resides in Los Angeles County. Pursuant to section 5501.5, applicant was permitted to file the application at any district office in Los Angeles County. Thus, the order changing venue to Marina del Rey was not proper.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; it will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
Applicant would suffer substantial prejudice and irreparable harm from the order changing venue; removal is granted.
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
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10480
Venue must be designated and specified in accordance with Labor Code section 5501.5 when filing a case opening document.
Applicant resides in Los Angeles County and was permitted to file the application at any district office in that county; the order changing venue was improper.
From the decision · page 3The Appeals Board's regulation for venue is succinct: "When filing a case opening document, the filer shall designate venue and shall specify the basis for venue in accordance with Labor Code section 5501.5." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10480.) In this case applicant resides in Los Angeles County. Pursuant to section 5501.5, applicant was permitted to file the application at any district office in Los Angeles County. Thus, the order changing venue to Marina del Rey was not proper.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant resides in Los Angeles County and filed at a district office within that county, which is permitted by Labor Code section 5501.5; the WCJ's order changing venue to Marina del Rey was not proper.
From the decision · page 3The Appeals Board's regulation for venue is succinct: "When filing a case opening document, the filer shall designate venue and shall specify the basis for venue in accordance with Labor Code section 5501.5." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10480.) In this case applicant resides in Los Angeles County. Pursuant to section 5501.5, applicant was permitted to file the application at any district office in Los Angeles County. Thus, the order changing venue to Marina del Rey was not proper.
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.