ADJ14514363 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal dismissed as moot and for lack of aggrievement; C&R approved by WCJ; no action occurred prior to removal request; admonishment issued to attorneys for filing frivolous petition.

Petition for removal filed by applicant alleging inaction by WCJ on a Compromise and Release; WCJ filed a Report recommending denial of removal; applicant filed a reply without proper procedure; petition dismissed as moot and for lack of aggrievement.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold October 13, 2025.

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

Petition dismissed because no WCJ action occurred prior to removal request, no aggrievement shown, and C&R was approved, making the petition moot.

From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from what applicant perceives to be inaction of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) upon a filed Compromise and Release. Applicant identifies no order, decision, or action that has occurred in the case within the petition other than a claim of delay.

The rules the panel named

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

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274

Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted; reconsideration must not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm; no prior WCJ action; petition dismissed.

From the decision · page 2substantial 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).)

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473; Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627; Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761

Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record and supported by substantial evidence; an adequate and complete record is necessary for review.

Appeals Board cannot act without a proper record from the trial level; removal to skip trial level is not possible.

From the decision · page 2Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.) Any decision that occurs in this matter must first occur at the trial level with a proper record created.

ADJ14514363 · March 20, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

About this page