What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied.
Petition for removal from order taking matter off calendar filed by defendant; WCJ issued report recommending denial of removal; WCAB panel decision on removal petition.
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 that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, and noted the issue appeared moot as no trial setting was pursued during the petition pendency.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on July 27, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant the extraordinary remedy of removal was not justified.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on July 27, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
No party sought to set the matter for trial during the three years the petition for removal was pending.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This indicated the issue was moot and the matter was ready for WCJ decision without removal.
From the decision · page 2We would further note that the issue now appears moot as no party has sought to set this matter for trial during the time the petition for removal has been pending. The petition for removal was filed in 2022. Defendant objects to the order taking the matter off calendar; however, in the three years following its petition, defendant has not taken any steps to place the matter back on calendar. A petition for removal does not halt proceedings at the trial level. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(e).) We presume that whatever additional discovery applicant sought is now complete and if the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, the matter appears ready for the WCJ to decide the issue. Either party may file the appropriate declaration of readiness to proceed (DOR).
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 petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
Applied to deny removal petition as petitioner failed to meet criteria.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order taking the matter off calendar issued on July 27, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
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.