What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied.
Joint petition for removal filed by applicants in five cases after WCJ denied requests to set matters on non-OD-Legal block days and to terminate all OD-Legal Block days at Oakland District Office; WCJ found lack of authority to grant relief.
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.
Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices by WCAB Rules; petitioners sought a remedy not permitted under the rules and failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 3Here, petitioners seek intervention from the Appeals Board with respect to scheduling of hearings. As stated above, scheduling of hearings has been delegated to the district offices by way of the WCAB Rules. Moreover, petitioners seek a remedy based on the pleadings that they have submitted, which is not permitted under the WCAB Rules. Moreover, no record has been created that we would enable us to meaningfully address the merits of their arguments.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices by WCAB Rules, not the Appeals Board directly.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Petitioners' requested relief was not within the WCAB's direct authority, supporting denial of removal.
From the decision · page 2While the Appeals Board has the ultimate statutory authority to regulate the adjudication process, with respect to the scheduling of hearings, through the WCAB Rules, the Appeals Board delegates authority to the district office. Specifically, WCAB Rule 10346(a) states that: "(a) The presiding workers' compensation judge has full responsibility for the assignment of cases to the workers' compensation judges of each office and may utilize EAMS to assign cases." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10346(a).)
Petitioners did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to meet the standard for removal required denial of the petition.
From the decision · page 3Thus, 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 petitioners.
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 is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; will be granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
Petitioners did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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).)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10346(a)
Presiding WCJ has full responsibility for assignment of cases to WCJs of each office.
Scheduling of hearings is delegated to district offices.
From the decision · page 2While the Appeals Board has the ultimate statutory authority to regulate the adjudication process, with respect to the scheduling of hearings, through the WCAB Rules, the Appeals Board delegates authority to the district office. Specifically, WCAB Rule 10346(a) states that: "(a) The presiding workers' compensation judge has full responsibility for the assignment of cases to the workers' compensation judges of each office and may utilize EAMS to assign cases." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10346(a).)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515
Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted.
Petitioners sought a remedy based on pleadings, which is not permitted.
From the decision · page 3WCAB Rule 10515 states that: "Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.)
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.