What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; order setting matter for trial rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial filed by Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF)
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.
Removal granted because not all necessary parties were joined and not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference, constituting irreparable harm and violation of due process rights.
From the decision · page 1UEBTF contends that trial is not appropriate at this time because all necessary parties to the proceeding have not been joined and that not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). UEBTF further contends that applicant amended the application for adjudication at the MSC to allege a specific injury, rather than a cumulative injury, and thus UEBTF is entitled to seek additional discovery on that issue prior to trial.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Not all necessary parties were joined and not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference
Favours Applicant prevailed
This constituted irreparable harm and violation of due process rights, warranting removal.
From the decision · page 1UEBTF contends that trial is not appropriate at this time because all necessary parties to the proceeding have not been joined and that not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). UEBTF further contends that applicant amended the application for adjudication at the MSC to allege a specific injury, rather than a cumulative injury, and thus UEBTF is entitled to seek additional discovery on that issue prior to trial.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal will be granted only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
Removal granted due to violation of due process rights and lack of notice to necessary parties.
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 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, the WCJ ordered the matter to trial, however from our review of the record it is not clear whether all necessary parties are presently joined and received notice of the hearing. This appears to constitute a violation of the due process rights of the parties to be heard, which constitutes irreparable harm, warranting removal.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Not all necessary parties were joined and not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference
From the decision · page 1UEBTF contends that trial is not appropriate at this time because all necessary parties to the proceeding have not been joined and that not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). UEBTF further contends that applicant amended the application for adjudication at the MSC to allege a specific injury, rather than a cumulative injury, and thus UEBTF is entitled to seek additional discovery on that issue prior to trial.
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.