ADJ10963100 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Joint Findings of Fact and Order affirmed as to employment, injury AOE/COE, and parts of body; all other issues deferred; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings

Petition for reconsideration granted; decision after reconsideration issued affirming findings of fact on threshold issues and deferring remaining issues to WCJ for further proceedings

Read the official decision →

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedbilateral wrists · bilateral knees

The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his bilateral wrists and knees, which was affirmed by the Appeals Board.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal in response to the July 8, 2025 Joint Findings and Order issued by a workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found, in pertinent part, that (1) applicant, while employed by defendant on June 17, 2017, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right ankle in case number ADJ10955805; (2) applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists and knees in ADJ1096310 [date of injury not identified]; (3) applicant properly obtained a qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in pain management; (4) the reporting of Guodong Li, M.D., is admissible as the PQME in pain management; and (5) Dr. Li shall be allowed to finalize the evaluation of the applicant. The WCJ ordered that Dr. Li be allowed complete his evaluation of applicant, with all medical records to be forwarded to him in the next 15 days, and that his original reports shall remain in evidence. All other issues, including sanctions and costs were ordered off calendar, with the parties to meet and confer as to same within the next 15 days.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant sustained injury to right ankle on June 17, 2017, arising out of and in the course of employment

Favours Applicant prevailed

This finding was affirmed by the Appeals Board as a threshold issue supporting compensability

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal in response to the July 8, 2025 Joint Findings and Order issued by a workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found, in pertinent part, that (1) applicant, while employed by defendant on June 17, 2017, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his right ankle in case number ADJ10955805; (2) applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists and knees in ADJ1096310 [date of injury not identified]; (3) applicant properly obtained a qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in pain management; (4) the reporting of Guodong Li, M.D., is admissible as the PQME in pain management; and (5) Dr. Li shall be allowed to finalize the evaluation of the applicant. The WCJ ordered that Dr. Li be allowed complete his evaluation of applicant, with all medical records to be forwarded to him in the next 15 days, and that his original reports shall remain in evidence. All other issues, including sanctions and costs were ordered off calendar, with the parties to meet and confer as to same within the next 15 days.

Applicant sustained injury to bilateral wrists and knees during employment period March 26, 2015 to July 20, 2018

Favours Applicant prevailed

This finding was affirmed by the Appeals Board as a threshold issue supporting compensability

From the decision · page 2FACTS In case number ADJ10963100, applicant, while employed during the period March 26, 2015, through July 20, 2018, as a painter/maintenance worker by defendant, sustained injury to his bilateral wrists and knees, and claims to have sustained injury to various body parts. In case number ADJ10955805, applicant, while employed on June 17, 2017 as a painter/maintenance worker by defendant, sustained injury to his right ankle, and claims to have sustained injury to various body parts. Applicant sought treatment with Universal Pain Management, where he was evaluated by both Rohit Choudhary, M.D., and Shahin A. Sadik, M.D. (Applicant's Exhibits 1 through 5). On March 4, 2024, applicant objected, pursuant to section 4062.2, to the February 14, 2023 medical reporting of Dr. Sadik. (Ex. 11.) Notably, while Dr. Sadik signed reports dated April 11, 2021, May 2, 2021, October 17, 2024, and January 26, 2024, it was Dr. Choudhary who signed the medical report dated February 14, 2023 to which applicant objected on March 4, 2024. (Exs.

There are unresolved disputes regarding the validity and service of the QME panel in pain management

Favours neutral

The Appeals Board deferred these issues to the WCJ for further proceedings to avoid prejudice and ensure due process

From the decision · page 9The issue of whether the objection by applicant, dated March 4, 2024, satisfies the mandate of section 4062.2(b) was also not addressed in the July 8, 2025 decision, which only found that a panel was "properly obtained" under that section. The matter should be returned to address this, along with the submitted issue of whether applicant's objection was a valid section 4062 objection. We note that section 4062.2 expressly provides a path to a QME panel or AME in represented cases based not only on objections under section 4062, but also under sections 4060 and 4061. (Lab. Code, § 4062.2(b).)

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board

The Appeals Board treated the petition as one for reconsideration and granted it within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 6Former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Labor Code section 5313

The WCJ must make and file findings on all facts involved and state reasons for determination

The Appeals Board found the WCJ did not address all issues and remanded for further findings.

From the decision · page 8III. The WCJ is required to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also, Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Section 5313 also requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." This is required so that the WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].) Each decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at page 478), and it must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration under the removal standard due to potential prejudice if removal was denied.

From the decision · page 8Removal 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 our review, we conclude that it is necessary for the WCJ to address the additional issues raised at trial by the parties, due to the potential of further disputes if Dr. Li's reports are reviewed by other physicians. As such, we are persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

ADJ10963100 · October 20, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page