Padilla, Rafael, Applicant v. CTI FOODS AZUSA, LLC; ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., administered by SEDGWICK CMS, Defendants

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RAFAEL PADILLA, Applicant
vs.
CTI FOODS AZUSA, LLC; ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO.,
administered by SEDGWICK CMS, Defendants1
Adjudication Number: ADJ20517913
Los Angeles District Office
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PETITION
FOR REMOVAL
Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued
on September 2, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
Applicant contends that defendant failed to sign the declaration of readiness to proceed,
and thus, the matter should have proceeded off calendar.
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.
Applicant filed a petition to file a supplemental petition for removal, which we have
accepted.
We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the supplemental petition,
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.,
1 Although Gallagher Bassett was listed on the application and is presently listed as a party in EAMS, this appears to
have been an error in the Application, which upon return, applicant should correct.

2
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
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, objections, and submit evidence. The trial WCJ can then consider the
evidence and the legal arguments raised by the parties and determine how best to proceed.
Accordingly, we deny removal.

3
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Removal from the order setting the matter
for trial issued on September 2, 2025, by the WCJ is DENIED.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR
I CONCUR,
/s/ JOSÉ H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER
/s/ CRAIG L. SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 20, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
RAFAEL PADILLA
GARRETT LAW GROUP, P.C.
DAVIDSON, CZULEGER & BLALOCK
EDL/mc
I certify that I affixed the official seal of
the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
to this original decision on this date.
KL