ADJ16771687 — California WCAB decision

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 August 13, 2025, by the WCJ.

Read the official decision →

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Appeals Board denied removal because the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final decision.

From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on August 13, 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.

Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

Favours Defendant prevailed

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 and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.

The Appeals Board applied this standard to deny the defendant's petition for removal because the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate.

From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that discovery is not yet complete. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. 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 merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable

ADJ16771687 · October 14, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

About this page