Curtis Chamberlain, Applicant v. Irwin Industries, Inc; Seabright Insurance Company, Defendants

Full title: CURTIS CHAMBERLAIN, Applicant v. IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC; SEABRIGHT…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Dec 30, 2021

No. ADJ8300946 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Dec. 30, 2021)

Opinion

CURTIS CHAMBERLAIN, Applicant v. IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants No. ADJ8300946 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California December 30, 2021

Marina del Rey District Office

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL

MARGUERITE SWEENEY, 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.¹ 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.

1 Commissioner Caplane and Commissioner Moresi, who were on the panel that issued a prior decision in this matter, no longer serve on the Appeals Board. Other panelists have been appointed in their place

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.

Finally, we note that absent any specific order by the judge to the contrary, “[d]iscovery shall close on the date of the mandatory settlement conference.” (Lab. Code, § 5502(d)(3).)

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

I CONCUR, KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR, KATHERINE WILLIAMS DODD, COMMISSIONER