Bank Of America; ACE American Insurance Company Cynthia Blackledge WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACYNTHIA BLACKLEDGE, Applicant,vs.BANK OF AMERICA; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ1735018 (LBO 0375311)ORDER DENYING REMOVAL 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, 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 frn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fnl. 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 demonstrates 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 show 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, defendant has not met these standards. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the WCJ has not “refused” to determine whether the opinion of David Pechman, M.D., the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in orthopedics, constitutes substantial evidence on the issue of applicant’s whole person impairment rating under the AMA Guides. The WCJ has merely deferred that determination until after trial. , Defendant correctly points out that, at the February 5, 2009 trial, stipulations and issues were framed and Dr. Pechman’s April 14, 2007 AME report was admitted in evidence. Defendant believes, therefore, t
Menu
