Godinez, Gonzalo, Applicant v. BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION, dba EL SUPER; SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, administered by ESIS, Defendants

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GONZALO GODINEZ, Applicant
vs.
BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION, dba EL SUPER; SAFETY NATIONAL
CASUALTY CORPORATION, administered by ESIS, Defendants
Adjudication Number: ADJ19002251
Marina Del Rey District Office
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PETITION
FOR REMOVAL
Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued
on September 22, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
Defendant contends that discovery is not yet complete.
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
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

2
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 is 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 the order setting the matter
for trial issued on September 22, 2025, by the WCJ is DENIED.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR
I CONCUR,
/s/ JOSÉ H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER
KATHERINE WILLIAMS DODD, COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING NOT SIGNING
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 4, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
GONZALO GODINEZ
OZUROVICH SCHWARTZ
DIETZ GILMOR
EDL/mt
I certify that I affixed the official seal of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to this
original decision on this date.
BP