What the panel ordered
The petition for removal is denied.
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued by the WCJ on October 21, 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.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued. Defendant also failed to timely file a petition for disqualification with required affidavit under penalty of perjury.
From the decision · page 1Removal 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).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to properly identify themselves as an illegally uninsured employer in appearances before the Appeals Board.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure could be sanctionable and supports the court's notice of intent to impose sanctions.
From the decision · page 2The WCJ previously issued a notice of intent to impose sanctions as it appeared that defendant failed to properly identify themselves as an illegally uninsured employer in making appearances before the Appeals Board. This failure to identify the party liable for payment of benefits, particularly when the party is illegally uninsured, could be considered sanctionable, particularly in light of the Appeals Boards recent en banc decision in DiFusco v. Hands On Spa, (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 1007. "Read together, WCAB Rules 10390, 10400 and 10401 ensure that all parties, representatives and liable entities are fully identified in each case. Compliance with these rules is important to avoid errors such as misidentification of parties, inadvertent omission of parties from pleadings, and incorrect case captions." (Id. at pp. 1018-1019.) Given the legal ramifications of illegally uninsured employment, both applicant and the court must be aware at all times of defendant's insurance status.
Defendant did not timely file a petition for disqualification with an affidavit under penalty of perjury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural failure justified denial of the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 2Under WCAB Rule 10960, proceedings to disqualify a WCJ "shall be initiated by the filing of a petition for disqualification supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating in detail facts establishing one or more of the grounds for disqualification...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960, emphasis added.) Petitions for disqualification must be timely filed: "If the workers' compensation judge assigned to hear the matter and the grounds for disqualification are known, the petition for disqualification shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10960
Petitions for disqualification must be timely filed with an affidavit under penalty of perjury stating facts establishing grounds for disqualification.
The Appeals Board found defendant failed to timely file a petition for disqualification and failed to provide the required affidavit under penalty of perjury.
From the decision · page 2Under WCAB Rule 10960, proceedings to disqualify a WCJ "shall be initiated by the filing of a petition for disqualification supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating in detail facts establishing one or more of the grounds for disqualification...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960, emphasis added.) Petitions for disqualification must be timely filed: "If the workers' compensation judge assigned to hear the matter and the grounds for disqualification are known, the petition for disqualification shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.)
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]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found defendant did not meet the burden to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
From the decision · page 1Removal 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).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant failed to properly identify themselves as an illegally uninsured employer in appearances before the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 2The WCJ previously issued a notice of intent to impose sanctions as it appeared that defendant failed to properly identify themselves as an illegally uninsured employer in making appearances before the Appeals Board. This failure to identify the party liable for payment of benefits, particularly when the party is illegally uninsured, could be considered sanctionable, particularly in light of the Appeals Boards recent en banc decision in DiFusco v. Hands On Spa, (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 1007. "Read together, WCAB Rules 10390, 10400 and 10401 ensure that all parties, representatives and liable entities are fully identified in each case. Compliance with these rules is important to avoid errors such as misidentification of parties, inadvertent omission of parties from pleadings, and incorrect case captions." (Id. at pp. 1018-1019.) Given the legal ramifications of illegally uninsured employment, both applicant and the court must be aware at all times of defendant's insurance status.
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.