California WCABLaw firm

Knopp Pistiolas

Knopp Pistiolas is named in 13 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Medical treatment / UR / IMR (4), AOE/COE (2) and Permanent disability rating (2). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Santa Rosa. The firm it meets most often is D'Andre Law (3).

Decisions: 13
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 9 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Who they face

3 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 9
Santa Rosa 3
Sacramento 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

9 for the defense
4 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

Counted over 13 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ10405282 · 2026-02-26 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.5In Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 30I] (Appeals Board en banc) (Nunes I), we held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment."
The Board found that the vocational evidence did not meet the standards for substantial evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating and that further development of the record was necessary to properly adjudicate the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14019875 · 2026-01-12 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5... Here, there are numerous issues with Dr. Williams' reporting. First, it appears he only reviewed medical reports at the time he performed his initial evaluation in May of 2020, and in fact, some of those reports were viewed on applicant's phone. (Exhibit 15 at p. 4.) Further, the few records he reviewed only addressed the thoracic spine, and the most recent report was dated December of 2018. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) Aside from some x-rays, it is unclear whether applicant received any medical treatment to his knee or lumbar spine.
The WCJ's findings that Dr. Williams' reports were not substantial evidence and ordering the parties to agree on an AME were preliminarily found to lack sufficient support, leading to granting reconsideration and deferring final decision for further review.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ16120106 · 2025-09-29 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In the present case there is a closed period of retroactive temporary disability occurring before the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME), chiropractor Michaels, evaluated the applicant on August 1, 2024. (Joint Exhibit 6.) The PQME then subsequently provided a February 1, 2025, supplemental report. (Joint Exhibit 7.)
The WCJ's finding of a closed period of temporary disability is supported by substantial evidence from PQME chiropractor Michaels' medical reports and the applicant's credible testimony, despite defendant's argument about lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12910087 · 2025-09-02 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on May 14, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that decedent the applicant sustained a specific injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her lumbar spine on February 4, 2019; that claimed that decedent sustained a cumulative injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to "other body systems" resulting in death on January 20, 2023; the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Death Case) (death case Application) was filed on January 2, 2024 and dated December 29, 2023; the death case Application was filed within one year of the date of decedent's death, but was filed more than 240 weeks after decedent's date of injury; Based on these findings of fact, the WCJ found the death claim Application barred by Labor Code2 section 5406, subdivision (b) (section 5406(b)), and "[a]ll further proceedings, including medical-legal discovery," to be moot.3
The WCJ erred in applying the specific injury date as the date of injury for the death claim; the date of injury for cumulative injury is the date the dependents knew or should have known the injury contributed to death, per Berkebile; lack of substantial medical evidence to determine cause of death requires further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11776398 · 2024-07-01 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.16Having reviewed all the evidence, I find and conclude that Applicant has not sustained his burden to prove injury AOE/COE to the right hip and/or right knee, either directly and/or as a compensable consequence. In fact, the only reference to injury to either body part is the cited report of Dr. Stein. However, I find that one sentence in a report focused on Applicant's left knee, does not constitute substantial medical evidence for purposes of a finding of injury to that body part. Dr. Stein did not have and did not review the complete medical record when providing that opinion, it is conclusory and not sufficiently explained as required by Escobedo, and finally it is not even definitive, as is uses the qualifier that the right knee, which shows arthritis in the medical compartment that can likely be attributed to his multi-decade pre-injury career of heavy agricultural labor as it does not appear to be part of the specific injury, and says the knee was "probably" aggravated by compensatory stress transfer from the injured leg. I therefore find there is insufficient medical evidence in this record to make a finding of injury AOE/COE to the right knee or right hip.
The only evidence for injury to the right knee and hip was a passing, conclusory statement in a PTP report that did not meet the substantial evidence standard under Escobedo.
Official decision · page 16 →
ADJ10652804 · 2022-01-13 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4[T]here was no substantial medical evidence offered to establish applicant sustained injury to his psyche, nervous system (anxiety), sexual dysfunction or sleep disorder arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant on 05/08/2015. (Report, p. 12.)
The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence supporting injury to psyche, nervous system, sexual dysfunction, sleep disorder, low back, left knee, or left ankle, and no new and further disability; Dr. Huffer's well-reasoned report was substantial evidence.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ12495318 · 2021-09-17 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.41. Applicant has not demonstrated that he has made any direct attempts to contact the Medical Access Assistant
Applicant failed to demonstrate any attempt to contact the medical access assistant or any deficiency in the MPN; the WCJ's findings that the applicant must treat within the MPN were affirmed.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13620994 · 2021-06-28 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Defendant's delay in responding to applicant's single September 21, 2020 letter asking to treat with NMCI is not substantial evidence of a neglect or refusal to provide treatment such that applicant may treat outside the MPN. There is therefore insufficient evidence in the record to find entitlement to treatment outside the MPN at defendant's expense. (See Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc) [decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record"]; see also Knight, supra.)
Applicant failed to prove that defendant's delay in responding to his request constituted a neglect or refusal to provide treatment; no evidence of efforts to obtain treatment after the request; AD Rule 9767.5(g) did not apply as there was no referral to a specialist or request for MAA assistance.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ12910087 · 2025-12-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3A petition for reconsideration is only properly taken from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) "An order, decision, or award of the WCAB or workers' compensation judge is final for purposes of a petition for reconsideration where it deter- mines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case." (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180; see Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410].) In other words, an order is final when it determines a "threshold" issue fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180.)
The Board found the decision under reconsideration was not final because it did not determine any substantive right or liability, thus the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ13068071 · 2025-01-24 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Under Labor Code section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
The petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of case transmission to the Appeals Board, and the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal rather than reconsideration.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ10652804 · 2021-04-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10353018 · 2021-03-23 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

KNOPP PISTIOLAS
LAW OFFICES OF KNOPP & PISTIOLAS
Knopp Pistiolas

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Knopp Pistiolas

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

9 for the defense

4 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ10405282 · 2026-02-26 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.5In Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 30I] (Appeals Board en banc) (Nunes I), we held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment."

The Board found that the vocational evidence did not meet the standards for substantial evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating and that further development of the record was necessary to properly adjudicate the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14019875 · 2026-01-12 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5... Here, there are numerous issues with Dr. Williams' reporting. First, it appears he only reviewed medical reports at the time he performed his initial evaluation in May of 2020, and in fact, some of those reports were viewed on applicant's phone. (Exhibit 15 at p. 4.) Further, the few records he reviewed only addressed the thoracic spine, and the most recent report was dated December of 2018. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) Aside from some x-rays, it is unclear whether applicant received any medical treatment to his knee or lumbar spine.

The WCJ's findings that Dr. Williams' reports were not substantial evidence and ordering the parties to agree on an AME were preliminarily found to lack sufficient support, leading to granting reconsideration and deferring final decision for further review.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ16120106 · 2025-09-29 · Santa Rosa District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In the present case there is a closed period of retroactive temporary disability occurring before the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME), chiropractor Michaels, evaluated the applicant on August 1, 2024. (Joint Exhibit 6.) The PQME then subsequently provided a February 1, 2025, supplemental report. (Joint Exhibit 7.)

The WCJ's finding of a closed period of temporary disability is supported by substantial evidence from PQME chiropractor Michaels' medical reports and the applicant's credible testimony, despite defendant's argument about lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12910087 · 2025-09-02 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on May 14, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that decedent the applicant sustained a specific injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her lumbar spine on February 4, 2019; that claimed that decedent sustained a cumulative injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to "other body systems" resulting in death on January 20, 2023; the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Death Case) (death case Application) was filed on January 2, 2024 and dated December 29, 2023; the death case Application was filed within one year of the date of decedent's death, but was filed more than 240 weeks after decedent's date of injury; Based on these findings of fact, the WCJ found the death claim Application barred by Labor Code2 section 5406, subdivision (b) (section 5406(b)), and "[a]ll further proceedings, including medical-legal discovery," to be moot.3

The WCJ erred in applying the specific injury date as the date of injury for the death claim; the date of injury for cumulative injury is the date the dependents knew or should have known the injury contributed to death, per Berkebile; lack of substantial medical evidence to determine cause of death requires further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11776398 · 2024-07-01 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.16Having reviewed all the evidence, I find and conclude that Applicant has not sustained his burden to prove injury AOE/COE to the right hip and/or right knee, either directly and/or as a compensable consequence. In fact, the only reference to injury to either body part is the cited report of Dr. Stein. However, I find that one sentence in a report focused on Applicant's left knee, does not constitute substantial medical evidence for purposes of a finding of injury to that body part. Dr. Stein did not have and did not review the complete medical record when providing that opinion, it is conclusory and not sufficiently explained as required by Escobedo, and finally it is not even definitive, as is uses the qualifier that the right knee, which shows arthritis in the medical compartment that can likely be attributed to his multi-decade pre-injury career of heavy agricultural labor as it does not appear to be part of the specific injury, and says the knee was "probably" aggravated by compensatory stress transfer from the injured leg. I therefore find there is insufficient medical evidence in this record to make a finding of injury AOE/COE to the right knee or right hip.

The only evidence for injury to the right knee and hip was a passing, conclusory statement in a PTP report that did not meet the substantial evidence standard under Escobedo.

Official decision · page 16 →

ADJ10652804 · 2022-01-13 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4[T]here was no substantial medical evidence offered to establish applicant sustained injury to his psyche, nervous system (anxiety), sexual dysfunction or sleep disorder arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant on 05/08/2015. (Report, p. 12.)

The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence supporting injury to psyche, nervous system, sexual dysfunction, sleep disorder, low back, left knee, or left ankle, and no new and further disability; Dr. Huffer's well-reasoned report was substantial evidence.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ12495318 · 2021-09-17 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.41. Applicant has not demonstrated that he has made any direct attempts to contact the Medical Access Assistant

Applicant failed to demonstrate any attempt to contact the medical access assistant or any deficiency in the MPN; the WCJ's findings that the applicant must treat within the MPN were affirmed.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13620994 · 2021-06-28 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Defendant's delay in responding to applicant's single September 21, 2020 letter asking to treat with NMCI is not substantial evidence of a neglect or refusal to provide treatment such that applicant may treat outside the MPN. There is therefore insufficient evidence in the record to find entitlement to treatment outside the MPN at defendant's expense. (See Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc) [decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record"]; see also Knight, supra.)

Applicant failed to prove that defendant's delay in responding to his request constituted a neglect or refusal to provide treatment; no evidence of efforts to obtain treatment after the request; AD Rule 9767.5(g) did not apply as there was no referral to a specialist or request for MAA assistance.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ12910087 · 2025-12-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3A petition for reconsideration is only properly taken from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) "An order, decision, or award of the WCAB or workers' compensation judge is final for purposes of a petition for reconsideration where it deter- mines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case." (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180; see Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410].) In other words, an order is final when it determines a "threshold" issue fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075; Rymer, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1180.)

The Board found the decision under reconsideration was not final because it did not determine any substantive right or liability, thus the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ13068071 · 2025-01-24 · Santa Rosa District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Under Labor Code section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

The petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of case transmission to the Appeals Board, and the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal rather than reconsideration.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ10652804 · 2021-04-12 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10353018 · 2021-03-23 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →