THANG VI DUONG INC STATE FARM INSURANCE ALEJANDRA GONZALEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAALEJANDRA GONZALEZ, Applicant,vs.THANG VI DUONG, INC.; STATE FARMINSURANCE, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7626627(Van Nuys District Office)ORDER DENYINGPETITION FOR REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Removal (Report) of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5); Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2).) 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, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to lien claimants. California law provides that the owner of a “trade secret” has a privilege to refuse to disclose it if allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. (Evid. Code, , § 1060; see also Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2025.420(b)(13).) Thus, unlike other privileges where protection is
Menu
