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.
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.
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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No action of the WCJ occurred prior to applicant seeking removal.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Petition dismissed because removal requires prior WCJ action; none occurred here.
From the decision · page 2Here, no action of the WCJ occurred prior to applicant seeking removal. Applicant's request in this matter is to skip trial level review of a Compromise and Release and proceed directly to the Appeals Board. However, this is not possible.
The Compromise and Release was approved by the WCJ, making the petition moot.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Petition dismissed as moot since the C&R was approved and only attorney's fee issue remains.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the Petition for Removal as applicant has not been aggrieved by any order, decision, or action of the WCJ. We would further note that the C&R at issue in this matter was approved by the WCJ and thus we also dismiss the petition as moot.
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.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.