What the panel ordered
The Petition for Removal from the order of joinder is denied.
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the order of joinder issued by the WCJ, which was considered by the WCAB based on the WCJ's Report and Recommendation.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 5, 2024.
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 denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No record exists to determine whether defendant's joinder is proper, so the WCJ may set a hearing to create a record and consider evidence and legal arguments.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without a record, the Appeals Board cannot address the merits of the petition for removal and thus denied the petition.
From the decision · page 2Notwithstanding our prior guidance, and to the extent that defendant argues that it should not be joined based upon various arguments on the merits, no record exists for any such determination. The WCJ may set a hearing and create a record. The WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine whether defendant's joinder is appropriate.
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 and will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found the petitioner did not meet the burden to justify removal.
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.