What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact dated March 28, 2022, affirmed except for amendment to correct clerical error
Petition for Reconsideration granted in part to correct clerical error; otherwise Findings of Fact affirmed
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 WCJ properly applied the removal standard for interlocutory discovery issues and found no entitlement to a new Panel QME list; the WCAB panel agreed and affirmed this finding.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 28, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant was not entitled to a new Panel Qualified Medical Examiner list.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's injury claim to back and left shoulder on September 9, 2021
Favours Applicant prevailed
Establishes the injury context for the entitlement claim
From the decision · page 2Although not addressed in either the Petition for Removal or the Answer, the WCJ became aware of a typographical error in the Findings & Order. Finding No. 1 should read as follows to match the 3/22/22 stipulations of the parties: 1. Applicant claims to have sustained an injury to his back and left shoulder while working as a flooring and drywall installer on September 9, 2021. The Court did not intend to find the injury industrially related. The undersigned therefore recommends that the Petition be granted solely to fix this typographical error. (Report, pp. 3 § 4.)
WCJ's Finding that applicant is not entitled to a new Panel Qualified Medical Examiner list
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding was affirmed by the WCAB panel, deciding the entitlement issue against applicant
From the decision · page 3Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) As stated above, having reviewed the entire record, we agree with the WCJ's analysis and decision. Based thereon we affirm the Finding that applicant is not entitled to a new Panel Qualified Medical Examiner list.
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)
Removal standard for non-final decisions regarding interlocutory discovery issues
Applied by WCJ and affirmed by WCAB panel in denying new Panel QME list
From the decision · page 2Regarding applicant's argument that he is entitled to a new Panel Qualified Medical Examiner list, we note that a decision issued by the Appeals Board may address a hybrid of both threshold and interlocutory issues. If a party challenges a hybrid decision, the petition seeking relief is treated as a petition for reconsideration because the decision resolves a threshold issue. However, if the petitioner challenging a hybrid decision only disputes the WCJ's determination regarding interlocutory issues, then the Appeals Board (including the WCJ) will evaluate the issues raised by the petition under the removal standard applicable to non-final decisions. Here, applicant's argument pertains only to an interlocutory discovery issue so it is appropriate that the WCJ addressed that issue by utilizing the applicable removal standard. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127
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.