What the panel ordered
The petition for removal from the order of continuance is dismissed.p. 2
Defendant filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued by the WCJ, which was later withdrawn as moot.
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 because the defendant withdrew the petition and the issue was moot. The Board admonished defense counsel for proceeding in good faith and noted that certain motions are not permitted in workers' compensation.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on April 15, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thereafter on July 13, 2026, defendant filed a petition to withdraw the petition for removal as the issue was moot. We would admonish defense counsel, Andre Aladadyan (CA# 322015) of Bondy Law Group, that attorneys must proceed in good faith and may not present arguments, which could be construed as frivolous. (Lab. Code, 5813; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) We would further admonish defense counsel that in workers’ compensation, “Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant withdrew the petition for removal as the issue was moot.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This withdrawal rendered the petition for removal moot, leading to its dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on April 15, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thereafter on July 13, 2026, defendant filed a petition to withdraw the petition for removal as the issue was moot. We would admonish defense counsel, Andre Aladadyan (CA# 322015) of Bondy Law Group, that attorneys must proceed in good faith and may not present arguments, which could be construed as frivolous. (Lab. Code, 5813; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) We would further admonish defense counsel that in workers’ compensation, “Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for removal.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5813; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10421
Attorneys must proceed in good faith and may not present arguments construed as frivolous.
Admonishment to defense counsel regarding the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on April 15, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thereafter on July 13, 2026, defendant filed a petition to withdraw the petition for removal as the issue was moot. We would admonish defense counsel, Andre Aladadyan (CA# 322015) of Bondy Law Group, that attorneys must proceed in good faith and may not present arguments, which could be construed as frivolous. (Lab. Code, 5813; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) We would further admonish defense counsel that in workers’ compensation, “Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for removal.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515
Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted in workers’ compensation.
Noting procedural limitations in workers’ compensation cases.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on April 15, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thereafter on July 13, 2026, defendant filed a petition to withdraw the petition for removal as the issue was moot. We would admonish defense counsel, Andre Aladadyan (CA# 322015) of Bondy Law Group, that attorneys must proceed in good faith and may not present arguments, which could be construed as frivolous. (Lab. Code, 5813; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) We would further admonish defense counsel that in workers’ compensation, “Demurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment are not permitted.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for removal.
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.