JAMES BUCHANAN, Applicant v. NETJETS SERVICES And ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY administered by ESIS FREMONT, Defendants

Full title: JAMES BUCHANAN, Applicant v. NETJETS SERVICES And ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Sep 13, 2021

ADJ10082092, ADJ10082119 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Sep. 13, 2021)

Opinion

JAMES BUCHANAN, Applicant v. NETJETS SERVICES And ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY administered by ESIS FREMONT, Defendants Nos. ADJ10082092, ADJ10082119 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California September 13, 2021

         San Jose 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 accept petitioner’s supplemental pleading. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10848, now § 10964 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Based on our review of the record, 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, 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.

         For the foregoing reasons,

         IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

          I CONCUR KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR, ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

         JAMES BUCHANAN ROBERT BLEDSOE MULLEN & FILIPPI