Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.
From the decision · page 7Removal 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).) Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we are not persuaded
Lab. Code, 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The WCJ's decision determined threshold issues and substantive rights and liabilities, making it final for reconsideration purposes.
From the decision · page 7A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
(Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either
"determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler
(1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer)
(1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661])
or determines a "threshold" issue that is 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. (Id. at p.
Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604
Where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition unless the party is newly aggrieved.
The petition was successive and dismissed because the applicant was not newly aggrieved.
From the decision · page 2Turning to the current petition, it is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a
petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party
unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611
[8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155,
159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 382]; Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84
Cal.App. 287, 293-295 [14 I.A.C. 221].) As stated in our en banc opinion in Navarro v. A & A
Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299 (Appeals Board en banc):
Lab. Code, 5311; Code Civ. Proc., 641
A party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641.
The petition did not set forth sufficient facts to establish disqualification of the WCJ.
From the decision · page 8To the extent the petitions contend that the WCJ should be disqualified, Labor Code section 5311
provides that a party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any one or more of the grounds specified
in Code of Civil Procedure section 641. (Lab. Code, § 5311; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 641.)
Among the grounds for disqualification under section 641 are that the WCJ has "formed or
expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f))
or that the WCJ has demonstrated "[t]he existence of a state of mind... evincing enmity against
or bias toward either party" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)).