Comcast and Helmsman Management Services Vernon Crutchfield WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAVERNON CRUTCHFIELD, Applicant,vs.COMCAST and HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7165303OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL Defendant seeks removal in response to the ruling issued by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) on May 26, 2011, in which the WCJ took this matter off calendar and ordered further development of the record to address Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084 [Appeals Board en banc], Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837],1Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 248 [Appeals Board en banc] (“Ogilvie I”), and Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1127 [Appeals Board en banc] (“Ogilvie II”).2 Defendant contends that it will suffer significant prejudice and irreparable harm by reason of the WCJ’s order to further develop the record regarding Almaraz/Guzman II and Ogilvie. It appears that Vernon Crutchfield, the applicant in propia persona, did not file an answer. 1 On February 3, 2009, the Appeals Board issued its first en banc decision in Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services and Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 201. On September 3, 2009, the Board issued its second en banc decision in Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services and Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084. (“Almaraz/Guzman II.”) Timely petitions for writ of review were filed in the Fifth and Sixth Appellate Districts, respectively. On August 19, 2010, the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a published opinion in Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 25 837], aff
