What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petition for Removal denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed on February 19, 2026, considered with WCJ's Report and Recommendation, timely acted upon by the Appeals Board on April 24, 2026.
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.
No final order had issued, so no grounds for reconsideration; the petition was also successive, raising previously raised issues.
From the decision · page 3In this case, no final order has issued and therefore there are no grounds to seek reconsideration. As such we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The current petition raised issues already raised in a prior petition filed December 9, 2024.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a party who fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration cannot file a successive petition unless newly aggrieved, the petition was dismissed as successive.
From the decision · page 4Here, the petition for reconsideration again raises issues raised in the Petition for Reconsideration filed on December 9, 2024. Accordingly, the current petition for reconsideration will be dismissed as successive.
No final order had issued in the case.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, the petition was dismissed for lack of finality.
From the decision · page 3In this case, no final order has issued and therefore there are no grounds to seek reconsideration. As such we will dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
Petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not adequate, the petition for removal was denied.
From the decision · page 4We also deny the petition as one seeking 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Contrary to the WCJ, we found the Petition for Removal timely. However, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition filed February 19, 2026, as the case was transmitted on February 23, 2026, and the decision was issued on April 24, 2026.
From the decision · page 1I. Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
Labor Code sections 5900, 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
No final order had issued in this case, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.
From the decision · page 2II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v.
A party who fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration cannot file a successive petition unless newly aggrieved.
The current petition raised issues already raised in a prior petition filed December 9, 2024, so it was dismissed as successive.
From the decision · page 4Here, the petition for reconsideration again raises issues raised in the Petition for Reconsideration filed on December 9, 2024. Accordingly, the current petition for reconsideration will be dismissed as successive.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Petition for removal was timely but denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 4We also deny the petition as one seeking 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Contrary to the WCJ, we found the Petition for Removal timely. However, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
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.