What the panel ordered
DENIEDp. 4
Applicant seeks removal of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Opinion) issued by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) on September 13, 2021. By the Opinion, the Appeals Board in a split decision amended the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 27, 2021 to find that applicant must attend an examination with the qualified medical evaluator (QME). The WCJ’s decision was otherwise affirmed. Applicant contends that she will be subject to significant prejudice and irreparable harm if she is compelled to utilize the current QME, George Watkin, M.D.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 13, 2021.
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's Petition was filed on October 6, 2021, more than 25 days after the WCJ’s April 27, 2021 decision.
From the decision · page 2To the extent, applicant is still contesting whether she is entitled to a replacement QME panel, her Petition is untimely with regard to the WCJ’s Findings on that issue.
Applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal.
From the decision · page 3Here, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to applicant.
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 1Applicant contends that she will be subject to significant prejudice and irreparable harm if she is compelled to utilize the current QME, George Watkin, M.D.
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.