What the panel ordered
The petition for removal is denied.
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on May 20, 2025, by the WCJ.
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 that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision is issued.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on May 20, 2025, 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.
Petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact led the Appeals Board to deny the petition for removal as removal is granted only under such conditions.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on May 20, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
Petitioner did not show that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the denial of removal because reconsideration is considered an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on May 20, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
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); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found the petitioner did not meet the burden to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on May 20, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
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.