What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal dismissed as moot.
Petition for Removal filed by applicant from the May 29, 2025 WCJ decision continuing an expedited hearing to a regular trial date, later dismissed as moot after parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan.
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 Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot because the parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan, rendering the issue no longer live.
From the decision · page 2For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant's Petition for Removal of the order of continuance issued by the WCJ on May 29, 2025, is DISMISSED.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan at the June 18, 2025 hearing.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This agreement rendered the Petition for Removal issue moot, leading to dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Following the filing of applicant's petition, at the hearing on June 18, 2025, the parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan in place. Accordingly, the Petition for Removal will be dismissed as the issue is now moot.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 5813
Petition for Removal must be timely withdrawn once issue becomes moot to avoid wasting judicial resources and potential sanctions for frivolous or bad faith tactics.
The Board admonished applicant's attorney to timely withdraw the petition once the issue became moot, emphasizing judicial economy and sanction risks.
From the decision · page 1We strongly admonish applicant's attorney, Susan Garrett of Garrett Law Group, P.C., that once a party has knowledge that an issue has become moot, it is incumbent upon that party to timely withdraw pending petitions on the moot issue. Requiring an order of dismissal to issue by the court wastes judicial resources and causes unnecessary delay, which could be construed as either frivolous or bad faith tactics. (Lab. Code, § 5813.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan, making the Petition for Removal issue moot.
From the decision · page 1Following the filing of applicant's petition, at the hearing on June 18, 2025, the parties agreed to a joint continuance with a discovery plan in place. Accordingly, the Petition for Removal will be dismissed as the issue is now moot.
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.