What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the February 1, 2021 Findings is dismissed as untimely. Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the March 19, 2026 Decision is denied.
Defendant filed two Petitions for Reconsideration: one challenging the February 1, 2021 Findings of Fact as untimely, and one challenging the March 19, 2026 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. The Board dismissed the first as untimely and denied the second on the merits.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 19, 2026.
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.
The petition was filed more than 25 days after service of the decision, beyond the statutory period, and is therefore untimely.
From the decision · page 8Here, the Findings were issued and served on February 1, 2021, and our Decision was issued and served on March 16, 2026. Defendant's Petitions were filed on April 7, 2026. Although the Petition as to our March 16, 2026 Decision is timely, the Petition as to the February 1, 2021 Findings was filed in excess of 25 days after the service of the decision, and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, defendant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. We therefore dismiss as untimely defendant's Petition as to the February 1, 2021 Findings.
The Board found no good cause to rescind its prior decision and found that good cause existed for an additional QME panel in internal medicine based on the totality of the evidence, including the opinion of Dr. Anees.
From the decision · page 9Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) The petitioner must also 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).) 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. As discussed in our March 19, 2026 Decision, based upon the totality of the evidence, including the opinion of neurological PQME Dr. Anees, good cause exists for a panel in internal medicine.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant's petition for reconsideration of the February 1, 2021 Findings was filed more than 25 days after service of the decision.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Statutory time limit for reconsideration is jurisdictional; untimely petitions must be dismissed.
From the decision · page 8Here, the Findings were issued and served on February 1, 2021, and our Decision was issued and served on March 16, 2026. Defendant's Petitions were filed on April 7, 2026. Although the Petition as to our March 16, 2026 Decision is timely, the Petition as to the February 1, 2021 Findings was filed in excess of 25 days after the service of the decision, and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, defendant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. We therefore dismiss as untimely defendant's Petition as to the February 1, 2021 Findings.
Dr. Anees, neurological PQME, opined that an internal medicine specialist should determine the causal nexus between work stress, prediabetes, and TIA.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the Board's finding of good cause for an additional QME panel in internal medicine.
From the decision · page 9Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) The petitioner must also 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).) 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. As discussed in our March 19, 2026 Decision, based upon the totality of the evidence, including the opinion of neurological PQME Dr. Anees, good cause exists for a panel in internal medicine.
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.
Dr. Anees opined that an internal medicine specialist should determine the causal nexus between work-related stress, prediabetes, and a possible TIA, supporting the need for an additional QME panel in internal medicine.
Board relied on Dr. Anees' opinion as part of the basis for finding good cause for an additional QME panel in internal medicine.
From the decision · page 9Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) The petitioner must also 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).) 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. As discussed in our March 19, 2026 Decision, based upon the totality of the evidence, including the opinion of neurological PQME Dr. Anees, good cause exists for a panel in internal medicine.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 5909; Lab. Code, § 5900(a); Lab. Code, § 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10940(a), 10615(b), 10600, 10605(a)(1)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of service of a final decision; this time limit is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by proof of mailing alone.
Applied to dismiss defendant's untimely petition for reconsideration of the February 1, 2021 Findings.
From the decision · page 7Turning now to the merits of the Petitions, we remind the parties that there are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be considered timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].)
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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to deny defendant's request for removal regarding the additional QME panel in internal medicine.
From the decision · page 9Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) The petitioner must also 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).) 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. As discussed in our March 19, 2026 Decision, based upon the totality of the evidence, including the opinion of neurological PQME Dr. Anees, good cause exists for a panel in internal medicine.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Opinion of neurological PQME Dr. Anees that an internal medicine specialist should determine causal nexus between work stress, prediabetes, and TIA.
From the decision · page 9Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) The petitioner must also 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).) 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. As discussed in our March 19, 2026 Decision, based upon the totality of the evidence, including the opinion of neurological PQME Dr. Anees, good cause exists for a panel in internal medicine.
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.