What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied
Petition for removal of WCJ order denying continuance request
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 agreed with the WCJ that although the denial order's language was intemperate, there was no demonstration of irreparable harm or substantial prejudice to justify removal, and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. 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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's denial order language was flippant, brusque, hasty, and intemperate.