Lawndale School District Kristin Dale WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKRISTIN DALE, Applicant,vs.LAWNDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ7277215OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Dcfcndani requests removal contending that the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) refused to approve a Stipulated Award for 0% permanent disability and ordered defendant to obtain authority to settle for a 3% Stipulated Award without a 15% reduction under Labor Code1 section 4658(d). Applicant, in pro per, sustained admitted injury to her left shoulder while employed as an instructional aide on March 4, 2005. Applicant did not file an answer. However, the WCJ issued a Repon and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny defendant’srequest. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, as well as for the reasons stated by the WCJ in her Report, which we adopt and incorporate herein, except with regard to the WCJ’s statement that a party may only seek removal where an order exists, we will deny defendant’s request for removal. Initially, we note that we disagree with the WCJ’s statement that “|f|or a petition for removal to prevail there would need to be an order [from] which removal is sought.” In fact. 1 All further statutory references are to the Labor Code, unless otherwise noted. , section 5310 provides the Appeals Board with jurisdiction to remove to itself the proceedings on any claim where relief is sought from non-final orders, decisions or actions that will result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm. (Lab. Code, §5310: Code Civ. Proc.. §1013: Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8. §§10843. 10507.) Therefore, an actual order is not necessary. Rather, any action taken by a WCJ, which can result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm, is sufficient grounds for a petition for removal. However, while defendant has suffi
