Maria Maldonado, Applicant v. Timiran, Inc., dba Hart Farms, California Agricultura Network Self-Insured Group Adjusted by Intercare Fresno, Defendants

Full title: MARIA MALDONADO, Applicant v. TIMIRAN, INC., dba HART FARMS, CALIFORNIA…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Nov 24, 2021

ADJ13707918 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Nov. 24, 2021)

Opinion

MARIA MALDONADO, Applicant v. TIMIRAN, INC., dba HART FARMS, CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURA NETWORK SELF-INSURED GROUP Adjusted By INTERCARE FRESNO, Defendants No. ADJ13707918 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California November 24, 2021

         Redding District Office

         OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL

          MARGUERITE SWEENEY, 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.

         Given that there is no evidence yet in the record at a mandatory settlement conference (MSC), it is within the MSC judge's authority to decide disputes over closing discovery and readiness for trial. We see no abuse of discretion here.

         For the foregoing reasons,

         IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

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

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

         MARIA MALDONADO

         LARRY BUCKLEY

         MULLEN FILIPPI