What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted to amend the May 29, 2024 Finding and Order to indicate a new panel issued in both case numbers ADJ10073615 and ADJ10155571; all other issues deferred and matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for removal from the Finding and Order Re: Second QME Panel (Represented Case) issued May 29, 2024, by the WCJ
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Removal granted to correct case caption and panel issuance; other issues deferred to trial level due to lack of formal record on dismissal claim.
From the decision · page 2Accordingly, we grant removal and as our Decision After Removal,, we amend the May 29, 2024 F&O to indicate that a new panel has issued in both case numbers. All other issues are deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No order of dismissal found in the Appeals Board's record for case ADJ10073615.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without a formal record of dismissal, the Appeals Board cannot rule on the dismissal claim and defers the issue to the trial level.
From the decision · page 2Next, defendant argues that one of applicant's cases was dismissed without prejudice. While we could not find any order of dismissal in the record, we make no judgment at this time whether that case is dismissed since without a formal record available to review, we have no ability to make this determination.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; must show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal not granted; reconsideration must be inadequate remedy if final adverse decision issues.
Applied to deny removal except to correct case caption and panel issuance.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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, the WCJ ordered a new panel to issue in one of applicant's cases, however, the issue of psychological injury is pled in both cases, and thus the panel should have been issued as to both cases. We will amend the F&O accordingly.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.