ADJ17808664 — California WCAB decision

ADJ17808664 · October 22, 2025

Petition for removal granted to amend the Findings of Fact and Order; the original F&O issued on June 11, 2025, is rescinded and substituted per the WCJ's Report; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Marina del Rey

What the panel ordered

Defendant filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Order issued on June 11, 2025, by the WCJ. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal recommending partial grant of removal. The Appeals Board granted removal to amend the F&O and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 24, 2024.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

Removal granted because the WCJ acknowledged error and recommended amendment of the F&O; no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown by defendant; removal is proper to correct admitted error.

From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Order issued on June 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that the opinions of multiple evaluators did not constitute substantial medical evidence and ordered a discovery plan for obtaining further reporting.

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

Removal granted because WCJ acknowledged error and recommended amendment of F&O; no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown

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 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 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).) Here, the WCJ has acknowledged error and requested that the F&O be modified to correct for such error. Thus, removal is proper in this case to correct admitted error.

AD Rule 10109

Claims administrator must conduct a reasonable and timely investigation upon notice of injury or claim

Defendant must investigate claim fully and fairly; cannot restrict investigation to objections or defenses only

From the decision · page 2To the extent that defendant argues that it has been substantially prejudiced or irreparably harmed, we find no evidence in the record to the support this. Applicant has presented multiple reports from multiple physicians providing opinions that applicant's injury is industrial. We would remind defendant of AD Rule 10109, which states, in pertinent part:

Labor Code section 5502(e)(3)

If defendant disagrees with primary treater's conclusion, must object and obtain QME opinion

Defendant's position that it need not investigate claim is not supported by Labor Code requirements

From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that the discovery plan ordered by the WCJ violates Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) and that the reporting of the current evaluators constitutes substantial medical evidence.

ADJ17808664 · October 22, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page