ADJ17195356 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal denied

Petition for removal from order setting matter for trial and permitting QME deposition filed by defendant

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.

From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial and permitting the deposition of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) issued on October 10, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Defendant's objection to continuance was waived/invited by defendant's own conduct at hearing

From the decision · page 2Defendant's objection that the matter was set for trial with discovery open and that the more proper order would have been to continue the hearing was waived and/or invited by defendant at the hearing, wherein the minutes state: "Defendant vehemently objects to a continuance." (Minutes of Hearing, October 10, 2024.) Again, defendant appears to be proceeding upon frivolous arguments.

Other evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

No substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown by defendant for removal denial

From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that trial should proceed without the deposition of the QME. We have not received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. Removal 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 substantial 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).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable

ADJ17195356 · September 26, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page