Where this sits
- Chapter 4.5.
- Division of Workers' Compensation
- Subchapter 2. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board--Rules and Practice Procedure
- Article 18. Reconsideration, Removal and Disqualification
The regulation, as printed
(a) At any time within 20 days after the service of the order or decision, or of the occurrence of the action in issue, any party may petition for removal based upon one or more of the following grounds: (1) The order, decision or action will result in significant prejudice. (2) The order, decision or action will result in irreparable harm. The petitioner must also demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy after the issuance of a final order, decision or award. Failure to file the petition to remove timely shall constitute valid ground for dismissing the petition for removal. (b) The petition for removal and any answer shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record. (c) A copy of the petition for removal shall be served forthwith upon all parties by the petitioner. Any adverse party may file an answer within 10 days after service. No supplemental petitions, pleadings or responses shall be considered unless requested or approved by the Appeals Board. (d) A workers' compensation judge may, within 15 days of the filing of the petition for removal, rescind the order or decision in issue, or take action to resolve the issue raised in the petition. If the workers' compensation judge so acts, or if the petitioner withdraws the petition at any time, the petition for removal will be deemed automatically dismissed, requiring no further action by the Appeals Board. The issuance of a new order or decision, or the occurrence of a new action, will recommence the time period for filing a petition for removal as described above. (e) The filing of a petition for removal does not terminate the workers' compensation judge's authority to proceed in a case or require the workers' compensation judge to continue or cancel a previously scheduled hearing absent direction from the Appeals Board. After a petition for removal has been filed, the workers' compensation judge shall consult with the presiding workers' compensation judge prior to proceeding in the case or continuing or canceling a scheduled hearing.
Authority and history
Note: Authority cited: Sections 133, 5307, 5309 and 5708, Labor Code. Reference: Section 5310, Labor Code.
1. Renumbering and amendment of former section 10843 to section 10955 filed 12-17-2019; operative 1-1-2020. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11351 (Register 2019, No. 51). For prior history, see Register 2008, No. 47.
What panels did with this rule
Released decisions that named § 10955, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.
- ADJ18572604 · 2026-06-30 · Sacramento District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found the petitioner did not meet the burden to justify removal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ8818515 · 2026-06-30 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant contends that the matter is ready to proceed to trial. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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 substantial 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
Applied to deny the petition for removal as petitioner failed to meet the criteria.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ19196196 · 2026-06-29 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.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];
The Appeals Board applied this standard to determine that the defendant's due process rights were violated, justifying the grant of removal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ14802723 · 2026-06-29 · San Jose District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.2Removal 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 substantial 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, the WCJ ordered that applicant's petition to seal be heard together at trial amongst applicant's petition for 132a. The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10813). Thus, removal is proper in this case.
The WCJ did not follow WCAB Rule 10813 regarding the petition to seal records, justifying removal.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ18574105 · 2026-06-26 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the case off calendar issued on February 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ noted in the minutes that defendant was to draft a letter to the qualified medical evaluator (QME) requesting that the QME address cumulative injury.
The Appeals Board applied this standard to deny the petition for removal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was adequate.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ20167209 · 2026-06-25 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's conduct, denying removal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ19901004 · 2026-06-25 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant contends that the WCJ abused his discretion in rescinding the order of dismissal. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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 substantial 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
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found the petitioner did not meet the burden to justify removal.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ12852505 · 2026-06-25 · Salinas District Office8 CCR § 10955
Determinative passage · p.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 substantial 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 petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found the petitioner did not meet the burden to justify removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
Rules beside this one
Article 18. Reconsideration, Removal and Disqualification — regulations rarely stand alone, and the answer is often two sections away.
- § 10952Appeal of Notice of Compensation Due. [Repealed]
- § 10953Petition Appealing Audit Penalty Assessment - Labor Code Section 129.5(g). [Renumbered]
- § 10956Rehabilitation Records. [Repealed]
- § 10957Petition Appealing Independent Bill Review Determination of the Administrative Director. [Renumbered]
- § 10957.1Petition Appealing Independent Medical Review Determination of the Administrative Director. [Renumbered]
- § 10958Hearing and Burden of Proof. [Repealed]