Petitions for Removal and Answers. 8 CCR § 10955

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10955, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ10035604 · 2026-10-12 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10955

  Determinative passage · p.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 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 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).)

  The applicant demonstrated substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, so the petition for removal was granted.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14132796 · 2026-10-07 · Santa Rosa District Office8 CCR § 10955

  Determinative passage · p.5which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ ”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders”].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, it is unclear from which order or set of findings defendant seeks redress. Defendant’s primary concern, however, seems to challenge the order denying his request for the transcript of the trial. This is an order that would ordinarily be subject to removal as an interlocutory order. Removal 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.

  The petitioner demonstrated potential significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ19581832 · 2026-10-05 · San Francisco District Office8 CCR § 10955

  Determinative passage · p.42 [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 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, for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, 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 failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy, so removal was denied.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ3117080 · 2026-09-28 · Sacramento District Office8 CCR § 10955

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, the applicant’s QME panel request failed to comply with the statutory requirements described above. It is unclear from the record how the panel was obtained. Specifically, although validity of QME panel number 3686064 was at issue for trial, there is no evidence that either party objected to a medical determination by a treating physician within 30 days, or any agreed upon time extension, from the receipt of any treating physician report in compliance with section 4062(a). (Lab. Code, § 4062(a).) Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant provided a form to applicant to request a panel QME within 10 days per section 4062.1(b). (Lab. Code, § 4062.1(b).) The WCJ found that QME panel number 3686064 was valid based on the August 5, 2025, Stipulation and Order that states: THE QME APPOINTMENT WITH DR. WIESELTIER SET FOR 8/14/25 WILL BE CANCELLED PENDING DETERMINATION BY THE WCAB ON WHETHER THE QME PANEL IS APPROPRIATE. IF THE PANEL IS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE A QME APPOINTMENT WILL BE RESCHEDULED AS APPROPRIATE. (All capitals in original.)

  The QME panel was invalidated due to failure to meet statutory requirements for issuance and objection.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ22241553 · 2026-09-25 · Fresno District Office8 CCR § 10955

  Determinative passage · p.3Appeals 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 ultimately 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 removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

  The petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8497367 · 2026-09-24 · Sacramento District Office8 CCR § 10955

  Determinative passage · p.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.

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

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ18995801 · 2026-09-10 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10955

  Determinative passage · p.38, § 10205.5.) Coldiron specifically outlines that the responsible entity must inform the Board of the appropriate parties at the earliest opportunity and no later than “at least the commencement of any litigation in the case.” (Coldiron, supra, at p. 294.) Removal 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 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).)

  The Board granted removal because defendant showed substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ21618015 · 2026-09-08 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10955

  Determinative passage · p.4Kleemann 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 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, 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 WCJ ordered that this matter proceed to a mandatory settlement conference, which is required prior to setting any of the issues in applicant’s case for trial. No trial on the merits has occurred in this proceeding. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp.

  Petitioner failed to meet this burden; removal denied.

  Official decision · page 4 →