Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
A petition for removal must be filed within 20 days after service of the order or decision or of the occurrence of the action in issue.
The petition was filed within 20 plus 5 days after service of the Minutes of Hearing, making it timely.
From the decision · page 1Initially, we observe that in order to be timely, a petition for removal must be filed within
20 days after the service of the order or decision or of the occurrence of the action in issue. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ designated defendant to serve the Minutes of
Hearing pursuant to Board Rule 10629. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10629(a).) Defendant filed its
corresponding proof of service on May 13, 2022. (Proof of Service of Minutes of Hearing, dated
May 13, 2022.) Board Rule 10605 provides that where service is accomplished by mail, fax, e-
mail or any method other than personal service on a party within California, the party has five
additional calendar days in which to exercise or perform any right or duty to act. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) Because the Petition was filed within twenty plus five days of the service of
the Minutes of Hearing, the petition is timely.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10605(a)(1)
Where service is accomplished by mail, fax, e-mail or any method other than personal service on a party within California, the party has five additional calendar days to act.
The petition was filed within 20 plus 5 days after service of the Minutes of Hearing, making it timely.
From the decision · page 1Initially, we observe that in order to be timely, a petition for removal must be filed within
20 days after the service of the order or decision or of the occurrence of the action in issue. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ designated defendant to serve the Minutes of
Hearing pursuant to Board Rule 10629. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10629(a).) Defendant filed its
corresponding proof of service on May 13, 2022. (Proof of Service of Minutes of Hearing, dated
May 13, 2022.) Board Rule 10605 provides that where service is accomplished by mail, fax, e-
mail or any method other than personal service on a party within California, the party has five
additional calendar days in which to exercise or perform any right or duty to act. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) Because the Petition was filed within twenty plus five days of the service of
the Minutes of Hearing, the petition is timely.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
The Appeals Board found it prejudicial not to weigh the sufficiency of the record and deferred that issue to the trial WCJ for further proceedings.
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
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).)
Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
The petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
The Appeals Board found it prejudicial not to weigh the sufficiency of the record and deferred that issue to the trial WCJ for further proceedings.
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
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).)