What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted, WCJ decision of March 7, 2024 rescinded, matter remanded to WCJ for further proceedings and decision
Petition for Removal granted, WCJ decision of March 7, 2024 rescinded, matter remanded to WCJ for further proceedings and decision
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 29, 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 Petition for Removal was granted because the WCJ failed to timely address the Petition, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to the Defendant, and reconsideration was inadequate as a remedy.
From the decision · page 5III DISCUSSION A Petition for Removal is an extraordinary remedy, rarely exercised by the appeals Board, and is generally available only where the petitioner has established that substantial prejudice or irreparable injury will result if removal is not granted. Swedlow, Inc. v WCAB (Smith) (1983) 48 CCC 476 (writ denied); Lubin v. Berkeley East Convalescent Hospital (1976) 41 CCC 283 (Board Panel); Hardesty v. McCord & Holdren, Inc. et. al. (1976) 41 CCC 111 (Board En Banc). Further CCR section 10843 requires a showing that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy after issuance of a final order, decision or award. In the instant case, the undersigned presiding judge agrees that the Petition for Removal should be granted and the matter should be returned to WCJ Jackson to set for further hearing. The WCJ is unable to act as she no longer has jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, the undersigned humbly requests that the WCAB remand this matter back the WCJ to address accordingly.