Gitanjali Cannon, Applicant v. State of CA Department of Justice; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants

Full title: GITANJALI CANNON, Applicant v. STATE OF CA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; STATE…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Nov 23, 2021

ADJ10402946 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Nov. 23, 2021)

Opinion

GITANJALI CANNON, Applicant v. STATE OF CA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants No. ADJ10402946 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California November 23, 2021

         Sacramento 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.

         "The WCJ's decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record. Such evidence may include: the recorded admissions and stipulations of the parties; the testimony of witnesses, if any; and documentary evidence including admitted medical records and physicians' reports (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10626), permanent disability evaluation reports (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10602), and other documents such as employment, payroll, and vocational rehabilitation records, as appropriate (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10601)." {Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) In this case, the WCJ properly relied on the parties' stipulations of the relevant facts.

         For the foregoing reasons,

         IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

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