What the panel ordered
Petition for removal dismissed as untimely; removal denied on merits if considered
Petition for removal from order setting matter for trial filed by applicant, found untimely and dismissed by 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 petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 35 days after the scheduling order, exceeding the 20-day limit under WCAB Rule 10955. On the merits, removal was denied as the applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for removal was filed 35 days after the scheduling order, exceeding the 20-day limit under WCAB Rule 10955
Favours Defendant prevailed
This untimeliness required dismissal of the petition
From the decision · page 2As to the timeliness of the petition, pursuant to WCAB Rule 10955, "At any time within 20 days after the service of the order or decision, or of the occurrence of the action in issue, any party may petition for removal[.]" Per the court's record a notice of hearing issued on May 16, 2025. The Petition for Removal was filed on June 20, 2025, which was 35 days later. It appears applicant may be basing the timing of the petition upon when the minutes of hearing were formally served, however, the occurrence of scheduling the trial occurred on May 16. Although the minutes repeat the fact that trial was scheduled, this does not extend the time for removal or create an independent cause of action.
Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such a showing, removal is not granted
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the
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; granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate remedy (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a))
The petition was dismissed as untimely and denied on merits as petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that he has not completed discovery. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we dismiss removal as untimely or deny removal on the merits. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, the petition was not timely filed and thus, it will be dismissed. However, even if we were to review the petition on the merits, it would be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the
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.