Laura Barrios, Applicant v. Marromac, Inc.; Insurance Company of the West, Defendants

Full title: LAURA BARRIOS, Applicant v. MARROMAC, INC.; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Oct 12, 2021

ADJ13943880 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021)

Opinion

LAURA BARRIOS, Applicant v. MARROMAC, INC.; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, Defendants No. ADJ13943880 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California October 12, 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. Pursuant to our authority, we reject applicant’s supplemental filing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10848, now § 10964 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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.

         We agree with the WCJ that any Medical Provider Network (MPN) issue in this case is not related to other cases.

         For the foregoing reasons,

         IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

         WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

          I CONCUR, KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR , PATRICIA A. GARCIA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

         LAURA BARRIOS

         FELDMAN LAW

         COLANTONI, COLLINS, MARREN, PHILLIPS & TULK