ADJ13280065 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration denied

Petition for reconsideration of WCJ's December 8, 2023 Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on 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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but the petition challenged an interlocutory finding and did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The petition was denied.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 8, 2023, Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 8, 2023. By the F&O, the WCJ found in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a detention deputy from February 24, 2001 through September 11, 2019, applicant sustained injury to his "nervous system" and "unspecified chest pain" and claimed injury to the digestive system, excretory system, circulatory system, back, bilateral hips, and right shoulder and that further development of the record was appropriate by way of further medical-legal reporting.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 783, 784, fn. 2 (Appeals Board en banc)

A decision including resolution of a threshold issue is a final decision subject to reconsideration.

The WCJ's decision included a threshold issue making it a final order subject to reconsideration.

From the decision · page 2If a decision includes resolution of a "threshold" issue, then it is a "final" decision, whether or not all issues are resolved or there is an ultimate decision on the right to benefits. (Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 783, 784, fn. 2 (Appeals Board en banc).) Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, the following: injury arising out of and in the course of employment, jurisdiction, the existence of an employment relationship and statute of limitations issues. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658, 662 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) Failure to timely petition for reconsideration of a final decision bars later challenge to the propriety of the decision before the WCAB or court of appeal. (See Lab. Code, § 5904.) Alternatively, non-final decisions may later be challenged by a petition for reconsideration once a final decision issues.

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 inadequate.

The petition did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, so removal was denied.

From the decision · page 2Removal 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

ADJ13280065 · March 4, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

About this page