What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the October 16, 2020 Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision, challenging the WCJ's finding regarding the QME's reporting and appointment of an independent medical evaluator.
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.
Defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy. There was no order striking the QME's reporting from the record.
From the decision · page 3Here, 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 Appeals Board has the discretionary authority under section 5701 to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence. (See also Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; see McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) Nothing in the F&O limits the parties' ability to seek clarification from the independent medical evaluator once he has issued his report.