Cynthia Cantu, Applicant v. Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles Caala, Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford Administered by the Hartford, Defendants

Full title: CYNTHIA CANTU, Applicant v. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Oct 14, 2021

ADJ13993034, ADJ14003482 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Oct. 14, 2021)

Opinion

CYNTHIA CANTU, Applicant v. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES CAALA, PROPERTY And CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD ADMINISTERED BY THE HARTFORD, Defendants Nos. ADJ13993034, ADJ14003482 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California October 14, 2021

         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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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.

         For the foregoing reasons,

         IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

          I CONCUR, JOSé H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER, ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

         SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.

         CYNTHIA CANTU GLAUBER BERENSON ALBERT MACKENZIE