What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal denied.
Petition for Removal of the Order continuing the Mandatory Settlement Conference was filed by Applicant and denied by the Appeals Board after review of the WCJ's Report and Recommendation.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 24, 2021.
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 found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to applicant.
From the decision · page 1Applicant filed a Petition for Removal of the Order continuing the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) of January 4, 2024, to February 8, 2024 because the pre-trial conference statement filed for the hearing only contained applicant attorney's signature.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This was the key legal standard for granting removal, which the Appeals Board found unmet.
From the decision · page 2substantial 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, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
No joint pre-trial conference statement was completed despite the stipulated continuance of the MSC.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of completed statement contributed to the delay but did not justify removal.
From the decision · page 2We observe that while the parties jointly stipulated to continue the February 8, 2024 MSC that is now set for April 25, 2024, we are not aware of any efforts that they had made to complete a pre-trial conference statement.
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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found the petitioner did not meet the burden to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
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
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidence of a completed joint pre-trial conference statement despite a stipulated continuance of the MSC.
From the decision · page 2We observe that while the parties jointly stipulated to continue the February 8, 2024 MSC that is now set for April 25, 2024, we are not aware of any efforts that they had made to complete a pre-trial conference statement.
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.