ADJ13241358 · March 12, 2025

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and did not prove reconsideration would be inadequate remedy, so removal denied.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny removal.

Defendant failed to serve all parties in cases listed in Exhibit A as required by Title 8, Cal. Code of Regs. section 10396(b)(3), (4).

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure justified denial of consolidation and removal petition because it denied due process to parties.

From the decision · page 4II. FACTS Defendant filed a joint petition to consolidate cases in the above matters relating to liens from JAI in these and multiple other cases listed on twelve (12) pages in Exh. A to the petition. (the applicant § 12-30-24-Petition for Order Consolidating Cases Pertaining to Joyce Altman Interpreters.pdf EAMS Doc ID 55610752; the applicant Exb A to Petition for Order Consolidating Cases Pertaining to Joyce Altman Interpreters.pdf EAMS Doc ID 55766795). The joint petition to consolidate cases shows service on JAI, her representative of record, Alcala Associates Los Angeles, Eric Salvado and Employers Preferred Insurance Company. (the applicant § 1-9-25- POS EXB A to Petition for Order Consolidating Cases Pertaining to Joyce Altman Interpreters.pdf EAMS Doc ID 55766796). Defendant did not file the petition in, or serve all parties to, the cases listed on Exh. A. Since this is required pursuant to Title 8, Cal. Code of Regs. Section 10396(b)(3), (4), the undersigned judge denied the joint petition for consolidation without prejudice. Defendants were advised in the joint order that all parties in the cases listed in Exh. A needed to be served before any consolidation order would issue. It is from this joint order denying consolidation without prejudice that defendant petitions for removal.

Petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of demonstrated harm justified denial of removal petition.

From the decision · page 6Based upon the above, it appearing Defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and all parties are required to comply with the WCAB regulations as it relates to requesting consolidation of cases, it is the undersigned judge's recommendation that the Commissioners deny Defendant's Petition for Removal.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, section 10955(a)

Removal will be granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

Applied to deny removal petition.

From the decision · page 1Removal 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).) Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, 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 petitioner.