What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied by WCAB panel
Petition for removal from Findings of Fact and Order issued April 22, 2025, filed by applicant and denied by WCJ; appeal to WCAB panel
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.
Applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from alleged procedural violation; WCJ correctly denied replacement petition; removal denied.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Order ("F&O") issued on April 22, 2025, 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 served communication with QME more than 20 days in advance as required by Labor Code section 4062.3(e)
Favours Defendant prevailed
This compliance negated applicant's claim of procedural violation and supported denial of removal petition
From the decision · page 5Next, and to the extent that defendant's letter also contained information, it was served well beyond the 20-day period outlined in the Labor Code. Thus, it was properly served. To the extent that applicant objected to the content of the information, applicant's objection was untimely and thus waived.
Applicant's objection to defendant's communication was untimely and thus waived
Favours Defendant prevailed
Untimely objection meant no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown, supporting denial of removal petition
From the decision · page 2On February 15, 2024, applicant's attorney objected to defendant's proposed advocacy letter "as containing non-medical information and unsworn statements, and for being untimely," as well as to "non-medical records `DOI 5/15/17 DATED 9/28/18' and `DOI 4/11/14 DATED 10/2/18'" (Joint Exhibit Y). On February 16, 2024, applicant's attorney sent his advocacy letter to PQME with exhibits, copying defense counsel (Exhibit 2). It appeared that the PQME evaluation took place on February 16, 2024 (Joint Exhibit Z).
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
From the decision · page 2On January 10, 2024, applicant's attorney sent proposed advocacy letter and schedule of records to defendant (Exhibit 1). According to this advocacy letter, the Panel QME (PQME) evaluation with Osep Armagan, M.D. was scheduled for January 18, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. On January 29, 2024, defendant sent proposed advocacy letter with "Enclosures as stated" to applicant's attorney (Joint Exhibit X). According to this advocacy letter, the PQME evaluation was scheduled for February 16, 2024.
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); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate
Applied to deny removal petition due to lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm
From the decision · page 1Removal 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
Labor Code section 4062.3(e)
Communication with QME must be served on opposing party 20 days in advance under Labor Code section 4062.3(e)
Applied to assess timeliness of communication service to applicant
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the qualified medical evaluator (QME) should be replaced because defendant failed to serve a communication upon applicant 20 days in advance pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4062.3(e).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant served communication with QME more than 20 days in advance as required by Labor Code section 4062.3(e)
From the decision · page 5Next, and to the extent that defendant's letter also contained information, it was served well beyond the 20-day period outlined in the Labor Code. Thus, it was properly served. To the extent that applicant objected to the content of the information, applicant's objection was untimely and thus waived.
Applicant's objection to defendant's communication was untimely and thus waived
From the decision · page 2On February 15, 2024, applicant's attorney objected to defendant's proposed advocacy letter "as containing non-medical information and unsworn statements, and for being untimely," as well as to "non-medical records `DOI 5/15/17 DATED 9/28/18' and `DOI 4/11/14 DATED 10/2/18'" (Joint Exhibit Y). On February 16, 2024, applicant's attorney sent his advocacy letter to PQME with exhibits, copying defense counsel (Exhibit 2). It appeared that the PQME evaluation took place on February 16, 2024 (Joint Exhibit Z).
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.