ADJ14004036 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration/removal denied

Petition for reconsideration/removal filed and denied by the Appeals Board panel

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 Appeals Board panel found the petition was timely filed and that removal was not warranted because the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

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 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.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The petition for reconsideration was filed timely within the 60-day period after transmission to the Appeals Board on August 26, 2024.

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 of transmission to the Appeals Board.

The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period from transmission on August 26, 2024, to deny the petition on October 22, 2024.

From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 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."

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

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate, so removal was denied.

From the decision · page 3Removal 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.

ADJ14004036 · October 22, 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.

The rules the panel named

About this page