NESTLE USA INC AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC JULIANNE BEAUPRE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJULIANNE BEAUPRE, Applicant,vs.NESTLE USA, INC.; AMERICAN HOMEASSURANCE COMPANY, administered bySEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENTSERVICES, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ9251260(Van Nuys District Office)ORDER DENYINGPETITION FOR 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, 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 irrei:arable 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 defendant. Preliminarily, the originally scheduled April 29, 2014 deposition date has passed. Applicant’s , verified answer states that her deposition has been rescheduled to September 2, 2014 and that she “intends to appear and cooperate fully with th
