What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision issued by WCJ on November 10, 2020 affirmed
Petition for reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; decision after reconsideration issued affirming WCJ's findings
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 affirmed the WCJ's finding that the QME panel was valid but allowed the defendant to challenge the appropriateness of the panel specialty upon remand for hearing.
From the decision · page 2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging the WCJ's finding that qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel number 7313432 is valid. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ found the QME panel number 7313432 to be validly issued.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding was affirmed by the Appeals Board, which denied removal and allowed further challenge to panel specialty at trial level.
From the decision · page 2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging the WCJ's finding that qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel number 7313432 is valid. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
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 standard for non-final decisions requiring showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm
Applied to determine whether removal was appropriate for defendant's challenge to QME panel validity.
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 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
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.