GUILD AND ROBERT WEATHERBYTWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE Administered by THE HARTFORD SAMUEL ENRIQUEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASAMUEL ENRIQUEZ, Applicant,vs.GUILD AND ROBERT WEATHERBY; TWINCITY FIRE INSURANCE, Administered byTHE HARTFORD, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ8915260; ADJ8934657(San Luis Obispo District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDENYING PETITION FORREMOVAL Defendant, The Hartford Insurance Company, has filed a Petition for Removal with respect to the Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at the mandatory settlement conference (MSC) of March 12, 2014. The WCJ’s order provided in pertinent part: “Applicant may choose interpreter who meets state requirements and will accept work comp pay schedule.” Defendant’s petition asserts, in substance, that applicant must use an interpreter from those listed in defendant’s medical provider network (MPN) interpreter program. We have considered defendant’s Petition for Removal and applicant’s Answer. Based on our review of the record, we 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, fi. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fii. 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, defendant does not dispute that applicant is in need of an interpreter or that it will ultimately be liable to pay for the interpreter, assuming the inter
Menu
