What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration/removal denied
Petition for reconsideration/removal filed and reviewed by WCAB panel
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 petition was timely acted upon within the 60-day period after transmission to the Appeals Board, and the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.
From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
The WCJ found a violation of section 4062.3(b) but exercised discretion to deny removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 5However, the WCJ found that applicant's counsel violated section 4062.3(b) by serving the cover letter communications on the QMEs without serving defendants his cover letter 20 days in advance. "Section 4062.3 contains different procedural requirements depending on the nature of the documents or materials to be provided to the QME." (Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803, 1810 (Appeals Board en banc).) Due to the differing treatment of information versus communication in the statute, the Appeals Board in Maxham delineated between the two as subsequently explained in Suon:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 27, 2025, starting the 60-day period for acting on the petition
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Board acted within the 60-day period, making the petition timely and barring reconsideration
From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
Applicant's counsel served cover letter communications simultaneously on QMEs and defendants but did not serve defendants 20 days in advance as required by section 4062.3(b)
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural violation did not cause substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, so removal was denied
From the decision · page 5(Petition for Removal at pp. 3:20; 4:3-4.) Applicant's April 8, 2024 subsequent, cover letter communications to the QMEs were simultaneously served on defendants. (Id. at p. 4:16-17.) The WCJ found that the cover letter communications were thus not an ex parte communication as that term was defined in Maxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2017) 82 Cal.Comp.Cases 136, 142 (Appeals Board en banc) and did not violate section 4062.3(e).
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.
From the decision · page 4Federick Butler, M.D., served as an internal panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME). William H. Mourdian, M.D., served as an orthopedic PQME. Dr. Butler evaluated applicant in person on June 21, 2020; Dr. Mouradian evaluated applicant in person on November 3, 2020.
From the decision · page 4Federick Butler, M.D., served as an internal panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME). William H. Mourdian, M.D., served as an orthopedic PQME. Dr. Butler evaluated applicant in person on June 21, 2020; Dr. Mouradian evaluated applicant in person on November 3, 2020.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board
The Board acted on the petition within the required 60-day period, making the petition timely.
From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm
Petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.
From the decision · page 4substantial 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).)
Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803
Wide discretion to determine remedy for violation of section 4062.3(b)
The WCJ exercised discretion to deny removal despite the violation, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 5In Suon, the Appeals Board opined that "[i]n contrast to the specific remedy provided by section 4062.3(g) for an ex parte communication, the Labor Code does not provide a specific remedy for a violation of section 4062.3(b)." (Suon, supra, 83 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1815.) The decision held that the trier of fact has wide discretion to determine the appropriate remedy for a violation of section 4062.3(b). (Id.) Six potential factors were outlined for the trier of fact to
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's counsel served cover letter communications simultaneously on QMEs and defendants, avoiding ex parte communication violation but violating section 4062.3(b) by not serving defendants 20 days in advance
From the decision · page 5(Petition for Removal at pp. 3:20; 4:3-4.) Applicant's April 8, 2024 subsequent, cover letter communications to the QMEs were simultaneously served on defendants. (Id. at p. 4:16-17.) The WCJ found that the cover letter communications were thus not an ex parte communication as that term was defined in Maxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2017) 82 Cal.Comp.Cases 136, 142 (Appeals Board en banc) and did not violate section 4062.3(e).
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.