What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied.
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on August 18, 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 defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy 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 August 18, 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 demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact was determinative because the Appeals Board requires such a showing to grant removal, which was not met here.
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
Reconsideration will be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supports denial of removal because the petitioner must show reconsideration is inadequate to justify removal.
From the decision · page 2merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
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; it 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 and found the defendant did not meet the burden to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be adequate.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on August 18, 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.