Department Of Consumer Affairs, Board Of Chiropractors; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Adjusting Agency, Hugh Lubkin, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAHUGH LUBKIN, Applicant,vs.DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ADJUSTING AGENCY,Defendants.Case No. ADJ7361379(Sacramento District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal. Based on our review of the record, 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, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.///////// , For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Removal is DENIED. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD ____________________________________________ DEIDRA E. LOWE I CONCUR,____________________________________________ JOSÉ H. RAZOCONCURRlNG, BUT NOT SIGNING______________________________________CHAIR KATHERINE ZALEWSKIDATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIANOV 22 2077SERVI
