What the panel ordered
The Petition for Removal filed by defendant Oakland Unified School District is granted. The WCJ's Minute Order dated May 4, 2021, is rescinded and substituted with an order dismissing San Francisco Unified School District without prejudice. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.
Defendant Oakland Unified School District filed a Petition for Removal of the WCJ's Minute Order dated May 4, 2021, which ordered the parties to obtain a QME report addressing new Kaiser records. The WCJ had issued a Joint Report and Recommendation to deny the Petition. The Appeals Board reviewed the matter and granted removal, rescinded the Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
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.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order to obtain a QME report addressing new Kaiser records was not supported by a complete evidentiary record and that the defendant's petition for removal was justified due to procedural violations and lack of evidence.
From the decision · page 1Defendant Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 4, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ ordered the parties to obtain a report from the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Martha Singer, addressing the newest Kaiser records. Discovery was otherwise ordered to remain closed.1
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant obtained 4,000 pages of Kaiser records after discovery was closed and served them to the QME without serving defendant first.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural violation was central to the defendant's Petition for Removal and the Board's decision to rescind the WCJ's order.
From the decision · page 3In its Petition, defendant contends that after discovery was closed on February 25, 2021, applicant violated the order closing discovery by obtaining 4,000 pages of Kaiser records. Defendant also contends that applicant then improperly served these records to the QME Dr. Singer without first serving defendant per section 4062.3(b) and Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803 (Appeals Board en banc). The WCJ in his Report does not address these contentions and focuses on the need for a supplemental report from the QME addressing these records. Applicant in his answer states that he withdrew his initial request to Dr. Singer that she review these records.
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.
Ordered by WCJ to provide a report addressing newest Kaiser records, but applicant withdrew initial request for review of these records.
The QME report was central to the dispute over the procedural propriety of obtaining new records after discovery closure.
From the decision · page 1Defendant Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 4, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ ordered the parties to obtain a report from the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Martha Singer, addressing the newest Kaiser records. Discovery was otherwise ordered to remain closed.1
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc)
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record and supported by substantial evidence.
The Board found the WCJ's order was not supported by a complete evidentiary record and thus could not be upheld.
From the decision · page 2Decisions 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.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc)
It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record.
The Board emphasized the need for a complete record to support the WCJ's decision to order a QME report on new records.
From the decision · page 3(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, former § 10566, now § 10787 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) "It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record. At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant obtained 4,000 pages of Kaiser records after discovery was closed, and served them to the QME without serving defendant first, allegedly violating Labor Code section 4062.3(b).
From the decision · page 3In its Petition, defendant contends that after discovery was closed on February 25, 2021, applicant violated the order closing discovery by obtaining 4,000 pages of Kaiser records. Defendant also contends that applicant then improperly served these records to the QME Dr. Singer without first serving defendant per section 4062.3(b) and Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803 (Appeals Board en banc). The WCJ in his Report does not address these contentions and focuses on the need for a supplemental report from the QME addressing these records. Applicant in his answer states that he withdrew his initial request to Dr. Singer that she review these records.
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.