Francisco Cervantes vs. Staffmark Investments; Aig Claim Services, Inc., As Administered By Chartis Claims, Inc.

(AHM 0124161)In this case, Francisco Cervantes, the applicant, was employed on November 4, 2004 and sustained an industrial injury to various body parts. The defendant, Staffmark Investments; AIG Claim Services, Inc., as administered by Chartis Claims, Inc., filed a timely Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board reverse the Order dated May 17, 2011, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered this matter continued to trial on July 6, 2011. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, finding that the defendant had not met the standards for removal and that the medical record was sufficient to proceed to trial.

Staffmark Investments; AIG Claim Services, Inc., as administered by Chartis Claims, Inc. Francisco Cervantes WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAFRANCISCO CERVANTES, Applicant,vs.STAFFMARK INVESTMENTS; AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC., as administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ4609386 (AHM 0124161)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board reverse the Order dated May 17, 2011, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered this matter continued to trial on July 6, 2011. Defendant contends that the case is not ready for trial because current medical evidence is insufficient to support an award of benefits. Applicant has filed an Answer.            Applicant, while employed on November 4, 2004, sustained an industrial injury to various body parts. After a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) on May 17, 2011, the WCJ set the case for trial over defendant’s objection. Defendant filed a timely Petition for 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, petitioner has not met these standards. ,             The record reflects that, on April 6, 2011, applicant filed a declaration of readiness to proceed (DOR)

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.