What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal denied
Petition for Removal seeking reconsideration denied by the Appeals Board panel
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 acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909(a) and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 10, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is April 11, 2025. This decision is issued by or on April 11, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 10, 2025, and the Report and Recommendation was served the same day.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on the petition, making the Board's April 8, 2025 decision timely.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on February 10, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 10, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on February 10, 2025.
The petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such a showing, removal is not warranted and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 10, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is April 11, 2025. This decision is issued by or on April 11, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate.
The petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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 significant 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
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.