Mount Diablo Unified School District; Tristar Patricia Mayorga WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPATRICIA MAYORGA, Applicant,vs.MOUNT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; TRISTAR, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7452503OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Defendant has filed a timely Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order dated July 12, 2011, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) granted applicant’s motion to quash the deposition of June Gonzalez, M.D., a treating physician. Defendant contends that a meeting between the claims adjuster and Dr. Gonzalez was not a prohibited ex parte communication; that the Order prevents defendant from developing the record on applicant’s claim for temporary disability and her credibility; and that defendant is prevented from investigating fraud and from reporting it pursuant to Insurance Code section 1877.3(b)(1). Applicant has filed an answer. 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.) The petitioner also 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. Applicant has now been examined by an agreed medical evaluator (AME). Defendant’s concerns have been or can be addressed by the AME. , However, we note that Labor Code section 4062.3(f) forbids ex parte communications w
