ADJ14728798 SANTA ACUNA, Applicant v. NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by KEENAN &ASSOCIATES Defendants

Full title: ADJ14728798 SANTA ACUNA, Applicant v. NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL…

Court: Workers' Compensation Appeals Board State of California

Date published: Jun 4, 2024

No. ADJ14728798 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Jun. 4, 2024)

Opinion

1

SANTA ACUNA, Applicant v. NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by KEENAN &ASSOCIATES Defendants No. ADJ14728798 Workers' Compensation Appeals Board State of California June 4, 2024

Van Nuys District Office

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL

CRAIG SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER

We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. 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 merits of petitioner's arguments, 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.

With respect to the issue of treatment, we note that so long as the treatment is reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the industrial injury, the employer is required to

2

provide the treatment, and treatment for nonindustrial conditions may be required of the employer where it becomes essential in curing or relieving from the effects of the industrial injury itself. (Granado v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399, 407 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647].)

3

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

I CONCUR,

KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR

JOSE H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER