CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal because removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated. The underlying dispute concerns the defendant's petition to terminate liability for a $573 monthly pool maintenance award. While the Appeals Board noted the applicant's argument that the award was too old to reopen, they also highlighted that medical treatment awards are contingent on the applicant availing themselves of the treatment. The WCJ recommended denial as the applicant failed to prove irreparable harm from the order setting the case for trial.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal because removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated. The underlying dispute concerns the defendant's petition to terminate liability for a $573 monthly pool maintenance award. While the Appeals Board noted the applicant's argument that the award was too old to reopen, they also highlighted that medical treatment awards are contingent on the applicant availing themselves of the treatment. The WCJ recommended denial as the applicant failed to prove irreparable harm from the order setting the case for trial.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.