CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which reasoned that the defendant failed to show such harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues. The underlying issue involved the defendant's unsuccessful attempt to preclude the deposition of the applicant's treating psychiatrist, a situation distinguished from controlling case law by the WCJ. Ultimately, the Board concluded that the defendant did not meet the stringent criteria for removal.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which reasoned that the defendant failed to show such harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues. The underlying issue involved the defendant's unsuccessful attempt to preclude the deposition of the applicant's treating psychiatrist, a situation distinguished from controlling case law by the WCJ. Ultimately, the Board concluded that the defendant did not meet the stringent criteria for removal.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.