What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact is denied.
Applicant seeks removal of the Findings of Fact issued by the WCJ on January 28, 2021, challenging denial of petition to strike the AME for conflict of interest; removal is rare and requires showing significant prejudice or irreparable harm; the WCJ recommended denial of removal.
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.
Applicant failed to meet burden of proof showing Dr. Gilberg had a disqualifying conflict of interest under AD Rule 41.5; Dr. Gilberg's lack of financial remuneration and no acceptance of network referrals supported impartiality.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings of Fact issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 28, 2021. By the Findings of Fact, the WCJ found that there was no factual or legal basis to strike the agreed medical evaluator (AME) and denied applicant's petition to strike the AME.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Gilberg receives no financial remuneration from Cedars-Sinai and does not accept network referrals.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports finding no disqualifying conflict of interest, favoring denial of petition to strike AME.
From the decision · page 2I am in receipt of a letter authored by Saam Ahmadinia, Esq., on March 3, 2020, received by my office March 17, 2020. My understanding of 41.5 of the QME regulations is that, if there is any financial interest that I would have with Cedars- Sinai Medical Center, then I would need to disqualify myself. I have been a member of the attending staff for many years but receive no financial remuneration from the medical center. It is true I am a member of the Cedars- Sinai network of psychiatrists, but I have never accepted a referral from the network because, while I am a psychiatrist, I do not customarily provide psychiatric medications. Most referrals from the medical center are for psychiatrists who might evaluate and provide psychiatric medications for a patient.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Gilberg stated he receives no financial remuneration from Cedars-Sinai, does not accept network referrals, and is objective and unbiased despite being on attending staff.
Dr. Gilberg's letter explained no financial conflict and impartiality, supporting denial of strike petition.
From the decision · page 2Dr. Gilberg sent a letter to the parties dated March 18, 2020, apparently in response to an inquiry from applicant, stating as follows in relevant part:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a)
Removal requires showing significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate remedy.
The Appeals Board denied removal because applicant failed to show these requirements.
From the decision · page 4significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
Lab. Code, 3202.5, 5705; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 41.5(b), (d)(3)-(4) and (e)
Burden is on applicant to prove disqualifying conflict of interest under AD Rule 41.5.
Applicant did not meet burden to show Dr. Gilberg's disqualifying conflict of interest.
From the decision · page 5As the moving party, applicant has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Gilberg's letter stating no financial remuneration and no acceptance of network referrals
From the decision · page 2Dr. Gilberg sent a letter to the parties dated March 18, 2020, apparently in response to an inquiry from applicant, stating as follows in relevant part:
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.