From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Margie Bush, Applicant v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendants

California Workers Compensation Decisions
Aug 6, 2021
ADJ12647837 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Aug. 6, 2021)

Opinion


MARGIE BUSH, Applicant v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants No. ADJ12647837 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California August 6, 2021

         Oakland District Office

         OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL

          JOSE H. RAZO, 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.

         We encourage applicant's attorney to act diligently in completing discovery to bring this case to trial. Continued unreasonable delays may be viewed as a lack of due diligence. We also caution defense attorney that attaching documents to a petition that have not been admitted into evidence is a violation of WCAB Rule 10945(c)(2)j. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10842(c), now § 10945(c)(2) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Future due diligence and compliance with the Appeals Board's rules is expected.

         For the foregoing reasons,

         IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

         I CONCUR,

          DEIDRA E. LOWE, COMMISSIONER, KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR


Summaries of

Margie Bush, Applicant v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendants

California Workers Compensation Decisions
Aug 6, 2021
ADJ12647837 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Aug. 6, 2021)
Case details for

Margie Bush, Applicant v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendants

Case Details

Full title:MARGIE BUSH, Applicant v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants

Court:California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Aug 6, 2021

Citations

ADJ12647837 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Aug. 6, 2021)