Segura v. United Staffing Associates, 010101 CAWC, ADJ12556486

• Case Date: January 01, 2001
• Court: California

NICHOLAS SEGURA, Applicant v. UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Defendants Adjudication No. ADJ12556486 California Workers Compensation Decisions Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State Of California February 23, 2021          San Luis Obispo District Office          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL           JOSE H. RAZO COMMISSIONER          We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Removal, applicant's 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 and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny the Petition.          Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers'Comp. AppealsBd. (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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied...