What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied
Petition for removal from order taking matter off calendar filed by applicant, denied by WCAB panel after WCJ report recommending dismissal
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 WCAB panel found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order taking the matter off calendar and concluded reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, thus denying removal.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on November 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant failed to meet and confer with opposing party before speaking to judge about disagreed disposition despite ample opportunity
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure justified the WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar and supported denial of removal by the WCAB panel
From the decision · page 2Per the minutes of hearing, the matter was ordered off calendar for the following reason: JUDGE REPEATEDLY ADVISED PARTIES THEY NEEDED TO MEET AND CONFER WITH ONE ANOTHER BEFORE SPEAKING TO JUDGE ABOUT DISAGREED DISPO YET FAILED TO DO SO DESPITE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS. JUDGE FINDS NO GOOD CAUSE TO KEEP MATTER ON CALENDAR FOR A CONFERENCE IF PARTIES ARE UNWILLING TO CONFER AT A CONFERENCE. OFF CALENDAR ON WCJ'S MOTION OVER ANY OBJECTION
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 petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate
The panel applied this standard to deny removal because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed adequate.
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
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Failure of parties to meet and confer before speaking to judge about disagreed disposition despite ample opportunity
From the decision · page 2Per the minutes of hearing, the matter was ordered off calendar for the following reason: JUDGE REPEATEDLY ADVISED PARTIES THEY NEEDED TO MEET AND CONFER WITH ONE ANOTHER BEFORE SPEAKING TO JUDGE ABOUT DISAGREED DISPO YET FAILED TO DO SO DESPITE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS. JUDGE FINDS NO GOOD CAUSE TO KEEP MATTER ON CALENDAR FOR A CONFERENCE IF PARTIES ARE UNWILLING TO CONFER AT A CONFERENCE. OFF CALENDAR ON WCJ'S MOTION OVER ANY OBJECTION
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.