SETH WALKER, Applicant v. MASON PAINTING, INC.; ICW PLEASANTON, Defendants

Full title: SETH WALKER, Applicant v. MASON PAINTING, INC.; ICW PLEASANTON, Defendants

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Jan 14, 2022

No. ADJ14497156 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Jan. 14, 2022)

Opinion

SETH WALKER, Applicant v. MASON PAINTING, INC.; ICW PLEASANTON, Defendants No. ADJ14497156 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California January 14, 2022

Fresno 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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).) 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.

Finally, we advise defense attorney that, in a verified Petition for Removal, it is sufficient to make an offer of proof regarding relevant evidence. The Appeals Board will not consider evidence attached to a petition that has not been received into evidence. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945.)

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

I CONCUR, DEIDRA E. LOWE. COMMISSIONER, ANNE SCHMITZ. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ^Sssssss^

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

SETH WALKER MICHAEL BURGIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ALBERT AND MACKENZIE