What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; order of submission issued April 9, 2026, rescinded; matter returned to presiding WCJ for reassignmentp. 3
Petition for removal from the order of submission filed by defendant; WCJ who conducted expedited hearing no longer available to issue decision; matter returned to trial level for reassignment
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.
Removal granted because the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing was no longer available to issue a decision, and removal is appropriate to avoid substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of submission issued on April 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter is not ripe for adjudication. We have received an Answer from applicant. The presiding WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal and rescind the order of submission as the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing is no longer available to issue a decision in this matter. The presiding WCJ requests return of this matter to the trial level for reassignment. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the April 9, 2026 order of submission and return this matter to the presiding WCJ for reassignment. 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
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing is no longer available to issue a decision.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This unavailability made removal necessary to avoid substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of submission issued on April 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter is not ripe for adjudication. We have received an Answer from applicant. The presiding WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal and rescind the order of submission as the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing is no longer available to issue a decision in this matter. The presiding WCJ requests return of this matter to the trial level for reassignment. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the April 9, 2026 order of submission and return this matter to the presiding WCJ for reassignment. 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
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)
Removal will be granted only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
The defendant's petition raised points that could have been raised on reconsideration, but removal was granted because the WCJ who tried and submitted the matter was no longer available to issue a decision.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of submission issued on April 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter is not ripe for adjudication. We have received an Answer from applicant. The presiding WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal and rescind the order of submission as the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing is no longer available to issue a decision in this matter. The presiding WCJ requests return of this matter to the trial level for reassignment. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the April 9, 2026 order of submission and return this matter to the presiding WCJ for reassignment. 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
Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board granted removal as an extraordinary remedy due to the unavailability of the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of submission issued on April 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter is not ripe for adjudication. We have received an Answer from applicant. The presiding WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal and rescind the order of submission as the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing is no longer available to issue a decision in this matter. The presiding WCJ requests return of this matter to the trial level for reassignment. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the April 9, 2026 order of submission and return this matter to the presiding WCJ for reassignment. 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
Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2
Removal will be granted only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
The Appeals Board granted removal because the defendant demonstrated that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of submission issued on April 9, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the matter is not ripe for adjudication. We have received an Answer from applicant. The presiding WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal and rescind the order of submission as the WCJ who conducted the expedited hearing is no longer available to issue a decision in this matter. The presiding WCJ requests return of this matter to the trial level for reassignment. 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the April 9, 2026 order of submission and return this matter to the presiding WCJ for reassignment. 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
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.