CompFox AI Summary
The defendant sought removal to rescind an order closing discovery and continuing the case to trial. They argued they had objected to the applicant's readiness to proceed and requested a supplemental QME report before the mandatory settlement conference, which the applicant's counsel claims not to have received. The Appeals Board denied removal, stating it's an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the defendant could offer the supplemental report at trial and raise any exclusion on reconsideration if aggrieved, thus reconsideration is an adequate remedy.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The defendant sought removal to rescind an order closing discovery and continuing the case to trial. They argued they had objected to the applicant's readiness to proceed and requested a supplemental QME report before the mandatory settlement conference, which the applicant's counsel claims not to have received. The Appeals Board denied removal, stating it's an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the defendant could offer the supplemental report at trial and raise any exclusion on reconsideration if aggrieved, thus reconsideration is an adequate remedy.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.