ADJ18437146 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal granted; April 3, 2025 order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.

Defendant seeks removal of the WCJ's April 3, 2025 order denying defendant's first amended petition to extend the cumulative trauma period and to join additional defendants.

Read the official decision →

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

Removal granted because the WCJ's order denying the petition was issued without a hearing or evidentiary record, violating due process requirements and preventing meaningful review.

From the decision · page 4Here, the WCJ summarily issued the Order denying the First Amended Petition for Joinder without issuing a notice of intent and without conducting a hearing on the petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) No record was created to support the Order denying joinder, and without an ability to review the evidentiary record and the stipulations and issues, we cannot complete a meaningful review of the Petition.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

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 granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

Applied to deny removal unless substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown.

From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION 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, 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).) All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Lab. Code, 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

Due process requires a fair hearing with findings on all facts and reasons for the decision, supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Applied to require the WCJ to issue findings and base decisions on admitted evidence.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also, Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).)

ADJ18437146 · June 30, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page