Resurreccion, Nina, Applicant v. RPMG MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., administered by THE HARTFORD, Defendants

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NINA RESURRECCION, Applicant
vs.
RPMG MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY,
LTD., administered by THE HARTFORD, Defendants
Adjudication Number: ADJ21560862
Pomona District Office
OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION
FOR REMOVAL
AND DECISION
AFTER REMOVAL
Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Order Granting Change of Venue issued
on October 14, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
Applicant contends that venue was appropriately selected based upon the county in which
applicant resides.
We have not received an Answer from defendant. 	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 we will grant removal and as our Decision After
Removal, we will rescind the October 14, 2025 Order Granting Change of Venue and issue an
order denying defendant’s petition for change of venue.
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

2
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, the WCJ ordered the venue of
applicant’s case changed to another district office. Applicant would suffer substantial prejudice
and irreparable harm from the order changing venue.
First, as the Petition for Removal points out, venue in this case was selected based upon
applicant’s county of residence.
Labor Code1 section 5501.5 states, in pertinent part:
(a) The application for adjudication of claim shall be filed in any of the following
locations:
(1) In the county where the injured employee or dependent of a deceased employee
resides on the date of filing.
(2) In the county where the injury allegedly occurred, or, in cumulative trauma and
industrial disease claims, where the last alleged injurious exposure occurred.
(3) In the county where the employee’s attorney maintains his or her principal place
of business, if the employee is represented by an attorney.
(b) If the county selected for filing has more than one office of the appeals board,
the application shall be filed at any location of the appeals board within that county
that meets the criteria specified in subdivision (a). The written consent of the
employee, or dependent of a deceased employee, to the selected venue site shall be
filed with the application.
(c) If the venue site where the application is to be filed is the county where the
employee’s attorney maintains his or her principal place of business, the attorney
for the employee shall indicate that venue site when forwarding the information
request form required by Section 5401.5. The employer shall have 30 days from
receipt of the information request form to object to the selected venue site. Where
there is an employer objection to a venue site under paragraph (3) of subdivision
(a), then the application shall be filed pursuant to either paragraph (1) or (2) of
subdivision (a).
(§ 5501.5.)
Here, the Labor Code permits an applicant to file the application in the county where they
reside, which is precisely what applicant has done. Based upon the application for adjudication,
applicant resides in Los Angeles County. Applicant filed the application at the Pomona District
1 All future references are to the Labor Code unless noted.

3
Office, which is in Los Angeles County. Accordingly, defendant had no statutory right to a change
of venue pursuant to section 5501.5(c) as venue is not based upon applicant’s attorney’s office
location.
In the WCJ’s Report reference is made to the DIR’s website, which contains a zip code
locator tool that can assist parties with finding a nearby district office. The WCJ correctly notes
that applicant lives closer to another district office in Los Angeles County. However, and to be
clear, where multiple district offices exist in a county, the Labor Code permits applicant to file the
application anywhere within the county. The web locator tool is not part of any Labor Code section
or any regulation that establishes venue. The web tool appears designed only to assist the public
in finding the nearest office. We can give it no legal weight in deciding the question of venue.
The Appeals Board’s regulation for venue is succinct: “When filing a case opening
document, the filer shall designate venue and shall specify the basis for venue in accordance with
Labor Code section 5501.5.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10480.) In this case applicant resides in
Los Angeles County. Pursuant to section 5501.5, applicant was permitted to file the application at
any district office in Los Angeles County. Thus, the order changing venue to Marina del Rey was
not proper.
Accordingly, we grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we rescind the October
14, 2025 Order Granting Change of Venue and issue an order denying defendant’s petition for
change of venue
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Removal from the Order Granting Change
of Venue issued on October 14, 2025, by the WCJ is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Removal of 	the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board that the Order Granting Change of Venue issued on October 14,
2025, by the WCJ is RESCINDED with the following SUBSTITUTED therefore:
IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s petition for change of venue filed on October
13, 2025 is DENIED.

4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is RETURNED with venue established at
the Pomona District Office.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ CRAIG L. SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER
I CONCUR,
/s/ LISA A. SUSSMAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
/s/ JOSEPH V. CAPURRO, COMMISSIONER
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 5, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
NINA RESURRECCION
DEFENDERS LAW
LLARENA, MURDOCK, LOPEZ & AZIZAD, APC
EDL/mt
I certify that I affixed the official seal of
the Workers’ Compensation Appeals
Board to this original decision on this date.
CS