ADJ7508584 · April 14, 2025

The Petition for Removal was granted because the WCJ failed to timely address the Petition, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to the Defendant, and reconsideration was inadequate as a remedy.

From the decision · page 5III DISCUSSION A Petition for Removal is an extraordinary remedy, rarely exercised by the appeals Board, and is generally available only where the petitioner has established that substantial prejudice or irreparable injury will result if removal is not granted. Swedlow, Inc. v WCAB (Smith) (1983) 48 CCC 476 (writ denied); Lubin v. Berkeley East Convalescent Hospital (1976) 41 CCC 283 (Board Panel); Hardesty v. McCord & Holdren, Inc. et. al. (1976) 41 CCC 111 (Board En Banc). Further CCR section 10843 requires a showing that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy after issuance of a final order, decision or award. In the instant case, the undersigned presiding judge agrees that the Petition for Removal should be granted and the matter should be returned to WCJ Jackson to set for further hearing. The WCJ is unable to act as she no longer has jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, the undersigned humbly requests that the WCAB remand this matter back the WCJ to address accordingly.

WCJ Jackson failed to timely prepare a Report and Recommendation on the Petition for Removal and did not rescind her order setting the matter for trial.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This omission caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to the Defendant, justifying granting the Petition for Removal.

From the decision · page 4As Judge Jackson is presently unavailable to prepare the Report and Recommendation at issue, the undersigned Presiding Judge is preparing this report on her behalf. Due to a clerical oversight, WCJ Jackson failed to identify the Petition as one for Removal, [and] did not prepare a timely report and recommendation or act within the statutory time frame set forth in CCR Section 10843. Based on a review of FileNet, the undersigned also notes that although both parties appear to identify the issues that are purportedly set for trial in their respective Petition and Answer, there is no joint signed pretrial conference statement located in FileNet uploaded by any party. Without a fully executed pretrial conference statement that identifies both the stipulations and issues no trial may proceed on the record. Additionally, the "facts" set forth by both parties seem to be in conflict with one another. For the reasons set forth in the Petition for Removal and the Answer, the Petition for Removal should be granted and the case should be returned to Judge Jackson so that she may address the issues raised in the parties' respective pleadings.

CCR section 10843; Swedlow, Inc. v WCAB (Smith) (1983) 48 CCC 476; Lubin v. Berkeley East Convalescent Hospital (1976) 41 CCC 283; Hardesty v. McCord & Holdren, Inc. et. al. (1976) 41 CCC 111

Petition for Removal requires showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury and that reconsideration is inadequate.

The Petition for Removal was granted because the WCJ failed to timely address the Petition, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to the Defendant, and reconsideration was inadequate as a remedy.

From the decision · page 5III DISCUSSION A Petition for Removal is an extraordinary remedy, rarely exercised by the appeals Board, and is generally available only where the petitioner has established that substantial prejudice or irreparable injury will result if removal is not granted. Swedlow, Inc. v WCAB (Smith) (1983) 48 CCC 476 (writ denied); Lubin v. Berkeley East Convalescent Hospital (1976) 41 CCC 283 (Board Panel); Hardesty v. McCord & Holdren, Inc. et. al. (1976) 41 CCC 111 (Board En Banc). Further CCR section 10843 requires a showing that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy after issuance of a final order, decision or award. In the instant case, the undersigned presiding judge agrees that the Petition for Removal should be granted and the matter should be returned to WCJ Jackson to set for further hearing. The WCJ is unable to act as she no longer has jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, the undersigned humbly requests that the WCAB remand this matter back the WCJ to address accordingly.

Factual discrepancies between parties and lack of a fully executed pretrial conference statement prevented trial from proceeding on the record.

From the decision · page 4As Judge Jackson is presently unavailable to prepare the Report and Recommendation at issue, the undersigned Presiding Judge is preparing this report on her behalf. Due to a clerical oversight, WCJ Jackson failed to identify the Petition as one for Removal, [and] did not prepare a timely report and recommendation or act within the statutory time frame set forth in CCR Section 10843. Based on a review of FileNet, the undersigned also notes that although both parties appear to identify the issues that are purportedly set for trial in their respective Petition and Answer, there is no joint signed pretrial conference statement located in FileNet uploaded by any party. Without a fully executed pretrial conference statement that identifies both the stipulations and issues no trial may proceed on the record. Additionally, the "facts" set forth by both parties seem to be in conflict with one another. For the reasons set forth in the Petition for Removal and the Answer, the Petition for Removal should be granted and the case should be returned to Judge Jackson so that she may address the issues raised in the parties' respective pleadings.