ADJ14095917 JESUS MADRIGAL RUIZ, Applicant v. JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL; LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION ADMINISTERED BY LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Defendants

Full title: ADJ14095917 JESUS MADRIGAL RUIZ, Applicant v. JONATHAN LOUIS…

Court: Workers' Compensation Appeals Board State of California

Date published: Apr 5, 2024

Adjudication ADJ14095917 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Apr. 5, 2024)

Opinion

1

JESUS MADRIGAL RUIZ, Applicant v. JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL; LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION ADMINISTERED BY LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Defendants Adjudication No. ADJ14095917 Workers' Compensation Appeals Board State of CaliforniaApril 5, 2024

Pomona District Office

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL

JOSé H. RAZO, 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.

2

Here, once the parties proceed to trial, they will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence. Specifically, as part of that process, defendant will have an opportunity to raise the issue of whether further development of the record is appropriate. The trial WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine how best to proceed.

3

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

I CONCUR, JOSEPH V. CAPURRO, COMMISSIONER, CRAIG SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER

DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA April 5, 2024

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

JESUS MADRIGAL RUIZ

KOSHKARYAN LAW

SALAH LAW CORPORATION