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 granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate.
The WCAB found removal appropriate because the defendant showed prejudice and irreparable harm from the untimely denial and reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 2I.
Removal 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); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 599, fn. 5;
Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 280, fn. 2.) Additionally,
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).) We find
that removal is appropriate in this matter.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10803; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10515
The WCJ's decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and include a proper trial record as required by Labor Code section 5313 and WCAB rules.
The WCAB found the WCJ's order lacked a sufficient record, with no evidence or stipulations, making the order improper and subject to removal.
From the decision · page 3must be included in a proper trial record. It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to
ensure that the record of the proceedings contains at a minimum, the issues submitted for decision,
the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and the admitted evidence." (Hamilton v. Lockheed
Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 [2001 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals
Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).) The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if
reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking
reconsideration more meaningful." (Id. at p. 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].) "For the opinion on decision to be
meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record."
(Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476.)