What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration/removal denied
Petition for reconsideration/removal denied based on WCJ's report and Appeals Board review
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 found the WCJ's analysis persuasive and determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's decision included findings on employment and injury arising out of and in the course of employment, which are threshold issues making the decision final.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the decision subject to reconsideration rather than removal, limiting the petitioner's options.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's decision includes a finding regarding employment and injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE), both threshold issues. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
The petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This justified denial of the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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. 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 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.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5904; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a)
Petition for reconsideration must be timely filed to challenge a final decision; removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm is shown.
The Appeals Board applied these standards and denied the petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
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.