ADJ8791088•Little, Cathy, Applicant v. ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants
Little, Cathy, Applicant v. ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants
ADJ8791088Calwcab14.11.2025
Gesamter Gesetzestext
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA CATHY LITTLE, Applicant vs. ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants Adjudication Number: ADJ8791088 Oakland District Office OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order vacating the July 17, 2025 Findings, Award, and Orders issued on August 21, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in vacating the prior findings in this matter because further development of the record is not necessary. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, 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, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) 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, 10955(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
2 ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ’s decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.) Here, once the parties proceed to trial, they will have an opportunity to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and submit evidence. Specifically, as part of that process, the parties will have an opportunity to raise the issue of whether further development of the record was appropriate. The trial WCJ can then consider the evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine how best to proceed. We make no judgment at this time whether additional discovery is warranted since without a formal record available to review, we have no ability to make this determination. Accordingly, we deny removal.
3 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Petition for Removal from order vacating the July 17, 2025 Findings, Award, and Orders issued on August 21, 2025, by the WCJ is DENIED. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD /s/ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR I CONCUR, /s/ CRAIG L. SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER /s/ ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 14, 2025 SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD. CATHY LITTLE IVANCICH & COSTIS, LLP COHEN ASSOCIATES EDL/mc I certify that I affixed the official seal of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to this original decision on this date. KL
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.