What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration/Removal denied by WCAB on January 13, 2025.
Petition for Reconsideration/Removal filed by defendant challenging the selection of PQME Dr. Gabriel Rubanenko; WCJ Findings of Fact issued October 15, 2024; WCAB review of petition and record.
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.
QME/AME processApplicant prevailedwrists · knees · GERD · sleep · anxiety · depression · gait
Defendant agreed to use Dr. Rubanenko as PQME and did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal; reconsideration is adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 5Removal 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, § 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 the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, defendant agreed to Dr. Rubanenko as the PQME, and Dr Rubanenko already issued his PQME Report based on this agreement. (App. Ex. A, pp. 1-4; App. Ex. 3, p. 1.) Therefore, defendant cannot choose a different PQME at such a late stage of the QME process.