ADJ8497367 · September 24, 2026

The petition was denied because the SIBTF issues were taken off calendar as interlocutory, not final, and the declaration of readiness did not indicate the SIBTF claim was ready for trial under the new Labor Code section 4758 safe harbor provisions.

From the decision · page 1applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative reconsideration, of the July 2, 2026 Minutes of Hearing order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) excused the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) from future hearings, while the case against applicant’s employer proceeds first. Applicant contends that by taking the SIBTF case off calendar until a determination was made on the claim against the employer results in extreme prejudice and irreparable harm because applicant will now be subject to the new SIBTF rules signed into law on July 13, 2026, as she will not be eligible for the safe harbor provisions found in the new Labor Code, section 4758. 1 We did not receive an answer from SIBTF.

Declaration of Readiness filed April 30, 2026 listed only settlement and did not indicate SIBTF claim was ready for trial.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This meant the SIBTF claim was not ripe for trial and thus taking it off calendar was interlocutory, not final, so removal was not warranted.

From the decision · page 5Applicant’s petition fails because there was no declaration of readiness that indicated that the SIBTF claim was ready to proceed to trial. The only issue listed on the declaration of readiness was “settlement” which is not a triable issue. Although the declaration of readiness did mention that there was an SIBTF claim it further stated that eligibility of the claim was “dependent on the determination of the work comp case”. In other words, the parties were unable to ascertain if there was a triable issue for SIBTF benefits until applicant’s psychiatric claim was industrially related or not. As this had yet to be determined, and there was no settlement of the case in chief, the SIBTF were not yet ripe for trial. Hence, the SIBTF issues were taken off calendar. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petition for Removal be denied.

Lab. Code, § 4758

Labor Code section 4758 safe harbor provisions apply only if declaration of readiness filed on or prior to June 1, 2026 indicated SIBTF claim ready for trial.

Applied to determine that applicant's declaration listing only settlement did not meet safe harbor criteria, leading to denial of removal.

From the decision · page 5(a) This section applies to a claim for SIBTF benefits that meets any of the following criteria: … (3)(A) On or prior to June 1, 2026, a declaration of readiness to proceed requesting a mandatory settlement conference was filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board district office indicating that the SIBTF claim was ready to proceed to trial.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate remedy.

Applied to deny removal petition as SIBTF issues were interlocutory and no irreparable harm shown.

From the decision · page 22 [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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the July 2, 2026 decision to take SIBTF issues off calendar while the case against the employer continues is not a threshold issue as SIBTF is not dismissed from the case, just taken off calendar to let the case against the employer move forward first. Issues against SIBTF are saved for a later date. As such, the July 2, 2026 decision is an interlocutory order and we treat this petition as a petition for removal. Although we understand applicant’s predicament in being now subjected to the new law that came into effect in July 2026, we agree with the WCJ that applicant’s April 30, 2026 Declaration of Readiness does not fall under the safe harbor provision of section 4758(a)(3) as the declaration of readiness did not indicate that applicant’s SIBTF claim was ready to proceed to trial. Accordingly, we deny removal.

Declaration of Readiness did not indicate SIBTF claim was ready for trial

From the decision · page 22 [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 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the July 2, 2026 decision to take SIBTF issues off calendar while the case against the employer continues is not a threshold issue as SIBTF is not dismissed from the case, just taken off calendar to let the case against the employer move forward first. Issues against SIBTF are saved for a later date. As such, the July 2, 2026 decision is an interlocutory order and we treat this petition as a petition for removal. Although we understand applicant’s predicament in being now subjected to the new law that came into effect in July 2026, we agree with the WCJ that applicant’s April 30, 2026 Declaration of Readiness does not fall under the safe harbor provision of section 4758(a)(3) as the declaration of readiness did not indicate that applicant’s SIBTF claim was ready to proceed to trial. Accordingly, we deny removal.