Luis Santana, vs. Kaiser Permanente; Sedgwick Cms,

In this case, Luis Santana, the applicant, was appealing a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The defendant, Kaiser Permanente and Sedgwick CMS, sought removal in response to the Minute Order of September 26, 2016, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) set this matter for trial. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, stating that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised and that the petitioner must demonstrate that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. The Board also noted that the issues raised in the petition may still be raised before the WCJ and may also be raised on reconsideration if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.

Kaiser Permanente; Sedgwick Cms, Luis Santana, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALUIS SANTANA, Applicant,vs.KAISER PERMANENTE; SEDGWICK CMS,Defendants.Case No. ADJ10269638(Van Nuys District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Defendant seeks removal in response to the Minute Order of September 26, 2016, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) set this matter for trial. Defendant contends in pertinent part that the matter should not have been set for trial because it had not yet finished discovery.            We received an Answer from defendant. We received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) from the WCJ, recommending we deny the petition.            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the Report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, for the reasons stated in the WCJ’ s report which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons explained below, 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 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, for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report, we are not persuaded that irreparable harm will result if removal is denie

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.