What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration/Removal denied by the Appeals Board.p. 4
Petition for Reconsideration/Removal filed and denied by the Appeals Board after review of the WCJ's Report and analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments.
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 denied the petition because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal of Judge’s Findings and Order or in the Alternative Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration. I. Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code 1 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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on May 28, 2026, and the petition was acted upon by July 27, 2026, within the 60-day statutory period.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timely action satisfied the requirement under Labor Code section 5909 for acting on petitions for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on May 28, 2026, and 60 days from the date of transmission is July 27, 2026. This decision is issued by or on July 27, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a). Section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides notice to the Appeals Board. Thus, the requirement in subdivision (1) ensures that the parties are notified of the accurate date for the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on a petition.
The petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure justified denial of the petition for removal under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).
From the decision · page 3Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.) 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 significant 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 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. Accordingly, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Appeals Board acted on the petition within the 60-day period as required by the statute.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal of Judge’s Findings and Order or in the Alternative Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration. I. Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code 1 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.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration was inadequate, so removal was denied.
From the decision · page 3Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.) 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 significant 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 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. Accordingly, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
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.