EMMANUEL RICO, Applicant v. MAGIC PRICE CLOTHING, IRAJ NATAN; EBRAHIM TALASAZAN; THE BIG OFF PRICE; TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, Defendants

Full title: EMMANUEL RICO, Applicant v. MAGIC PRICE CLOTHING, IRAJ NATAN; EBRAHIM…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Dec 1, 2021

ADJ10067067 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)

Opinion

EMMANUEL RICO, Applicant v. MAGIC PRICE CLOTHING, IRAJ NATAN; EBRAHIM TALASAZAN; THE BIG OFF PRICE; TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, Defendants No. ADJ10067067 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California December 1, 2021

         Marina del Rey 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. AppealsBd. (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 acknowledge applicant's attorney's concern regarding the delays in this case and encourage all the parties and the WCJ to work diligently to complete the trial in this matter.

         For the foregoing reasons,

         IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

          I CONCUR, MARGUERITE SWEENEY. COMMISSIONER, KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI. CHAIR