From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

JESSE CAMACHO, Applicant v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES; BROADSPIRE, Defendants

California Workers Compensation Decisions
Aug 4, 2021
ADJ10040846, ADJ10040847 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)

Opinion


JESSE CAMACHO, Applicant v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES; BROADSPIRE, Defendants Nos. ADJ10040846, ADJ10040847 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California August 4, 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. 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.

         On September 25, 2020, the majority of this panel denied applicant's Petition for Removal and noted that applicant could raise the request for additional discovery with the trial judge. As noted by the WCJ in the report "the issue of admissibility of reports after the close of discovery is a triable issue for which this WCJ would address at trial." We reiterate that applicant may raise any discovery/admissibility issue with the trial judge.

         For the foregoing reasons,

         IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

         I CONCUR,

          KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR, MARGUERITE SWEENEY, COMMISSIONER PARTICIPATING NOT SIGNING


Summaries of

JESSE CAMACHO, Applicant v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES; BROADSPIRE, Defendants

California Workers Compensation Decisions
Aug 4, 2021
ADJ10040846, ADJ10040847 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)
Case details for

JESSE CAMACHO, Applicant v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES; BROADSPIRE, Defendants

Case Details

Full title:JESSE CAMACHO, Applicant v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES; BROADSPIRE, Defendants

Court:California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Aug 4, 2021

Citations

ADJ10040846, ADJ10040847 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)