What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration was denied by the Appeals Board panel.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the WCJ's finding regarding the appropriate specialty for the QME 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.
The Appeals Board applied the removal standard and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 2WCJ's finding regarding whether chiropractic is the appropriate specialty for the qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The defendant challenged the WCJ's finding regarding whether chiropractic is the appropriate specialty for the QME panel.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This was the sole issue under review and the basis for the Petition for Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging the
The Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was denied and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding justified denial of the Petition for Reconsideration under the removal standard.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, 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 rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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]
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; it will grant removal only if the petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board applied this standard to deny the Petition for Reconsideration because the petitioner did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, 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 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.