What the panel ordered
All petitions (reconsideration, removal, disqualification) dismissed as withdrawn by applicant.
Applicant filed petitions for reconsideration, removal, and disqualification of the WCJ after the second day of trial; applicant later withdrew all petitions before a merits decision.
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.
Petition for disqualification was withdrawn by applicant; even if not, it was untimely and did not set forth facts sufficient to establish disqualification.
From the decision · page 6Here, as discussed in the WCJ's report, the petition for disqualification does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g).
Petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by applicant; even if not, it was not from a final order and would have been denied as interlocutory and potentially frivolous.
From the decision · page 3Here, the only order at issue is the one setting the matter for further proceedings. In our recent en banc decision in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg. (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 549 (Appeals Board en banc), we clearly stated that filing petitions for reconsideration on interlocutory orders may be considered "frivolous and filed for the purposes of delay in violation of section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10421." (Id. at 555.)
Petition for removal was withdrawn by applicant; even if not, it was frivolous and did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 4Cal.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).) Here, as the petition appears to be frivolous and to have little merit, it is clear that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will not 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 petitioner.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant withdrew all petitions before a merits decision was reached.
Favours neutral
Withdrawal rendered all petitions moot and led to dismissal without reaching the merits.
From the decision · page 1Subsequently, applicant submitted a request to withdraw the petitions. Therefore, we will dismiss the petition for reconsideration, the petition for disqualification, and the petition for removal on that basis.
The petition for disqualification was filed more than 10 days after the alleged grounds arose.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Petition was untimely under WCAB Rule 10960 and would have been denied on that basis.
From the decision · page 6Moreover, the petition was untimely per WCAB Rule 10960. The alleged grounds for disqualification occurred at the trial on April 1, 2025. The petition here was filed on May 12, 2025. Had the petition not been withdrawn, the petition would have been denied on the merits and as being untimely. Again, applicant's counsel is reminded that repeated non-compliance with the specific procedures outlined in the regulations is a basis for sanctions.
The petition for reconsideration challenged only an interlocutory order setting further proceedings, not a final order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Such orders are not subject to reconsideration, so the petition would have been denied even if not withdrawn.
From the decision · page 3Here, the only order at issue is the one setting the matter for further proceedings. In our recent en banc decision in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg. (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 549 (Appeals Board en banc), we clearly stated that filing petitions for reconsideration on interlocutory orders may be considered "frivolous and filed for the purposes of delay in violation of section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10421." (Id. at 555.)
The petition for removal did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to meet the standard for removal meant the petition would have been denied even if not withdrawn.
From the decision · page 4Cal.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).) Here, as the petition appears to be frivolous and to have little merit, it is clear that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will not 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 petitioner.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code § 5909(a)-(b)
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board; service of the accompanying report constitutes notice.
Applied to determine timeliness and notice for the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2(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.
Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB; Maranian v. WCAB
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final.
Applied to determine that the order at issue was not final and thus not subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3A 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. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. WCAB; Kleemann v. WCAB
Removal is granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to determine that the petition for removal was frivolous and did not meet the standard.
From the decision · page 4Cal.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).) Here, as the petition appears to be frivolous and to have little merit, it is clear that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will not 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 petitioner.
Lab. Code § 5311; Code Civ. Proc. § 641; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960
A petition for disqualification must be supported by a detailed affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating facts establishing grounds for disqualification; must be filed within 10 days after grounds are known.
Applied to determine that the petition for disqualification was untimely and insufficiently supported.
From the decision · page 5Finally, WCAB Rule 10960 provides that when the WCJ and "the grounds for disqualification" are known, a petition for disqualification "shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known."
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.