HUGHES AIRCRAFT WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERNARD BILLIK WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABERNARD BILLIK, Applicant,vs.HUGHES AIRCRAFT; WAUSAUINSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTYMUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ887768 (MON 0029718)ADJ4445992 (MON 0029719)(Long Beach District Office)ORDER DENYINGPETITION FORREMOVAL 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 for the reasons stated in said report which we adopt and incorporate, with the exception of Section IIl-B (pp. 5-6), 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, fu. 5); Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fu. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fu. 2].) A grant of removal is particularly rare once a trial has already commenced, and even rarer once the trial has ended and the matter has been submitted for decision. 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 prejudic 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 defendant. The WCJ’ s Report states that this matter was submitted for
