YOLANDA SAICO, Applicant v. EVA CARE GROUP; CANNON COCHRAN SCOTTSDALE, Defendants

Full title: YOLANDA SAICO, Applicant v. EVA CARE GROUP; CANNON COCHRAN SCOTTSDALE…

Court: California Workers Compensation Decisions

Date published: Jan 14, 2022

ADJ13440557, ADJ13440558 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Jan. 14, 2022)

Opinion

YOLANDA SAICO, Applicant v. EVA CARE GROUP; CANNON COCHRAN SCOTTSDALE, Defendants Nos. ADJ13440557, ADJ13440558 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of California January 14, 2022

Van Nuys 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.

Contrary to the statement in the Report that "...the Petitioner shall be deemed to have waived any and all objections to proceedings on the issues specified in the declaration," the petitioner has not waived his objections and may raise them again with the trial judge.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED.

I CONCUR, KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR, JOSE H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER

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

YOLANDA SAICO MELKONYAN LAW SCHLOSSBERG UMHOLTZ