What the panel ordered
Petition for removal dismissed and returned to trial level to be treated as a request for continuance
Petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial filed by applicant, considered by WCJ and WCAB panel
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 dismissed the petition for removal because the record was incomplete and the WCJ should first consider the petition as a request for continuance at trial level.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on December 2, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record was incomplete and no formal record was available to review.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without a formal record, the Appeals Board could not make a determination on the petition for removal and returned the matter to the trial level.
From the decision · page 2We make no judgment at this time whether additional discovery is warranted since without a formal record available to review, we have no ability to make this determination.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (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 and supported by substantial evidence.
The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal because the record was incomplete and no formal record was available to review.
From the decision · page 1Decisions 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. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1
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.