What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied
Petition for reconsideration filed and denied based on WCJ's report and analysis
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 petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 4ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if the petition is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 11, 2024, and the petition was decided within the 60-day period ending February 10, 2025
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established timely action on the petition for reconsideration as required by Labor Code section 5909.
From the decision · page 3Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on December 11, 2024, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on December 11, 2024. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with Labor Code section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on December 11, 2024.
Petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied
Favours Defendant prevailed
This justified denial of the petition under the removal standard.
From the decision · page 4ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if the petition is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of case transmission to Appeals Board
The case was transmitted on December 11, 2024, and the 60-day period ended on February 10, 2025, the date of decision.
From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result
The petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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 significant 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
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.