ADJ19167634 · November 7, 2025

The petition was denied because the incorrect claim number and primary treating physician listed in the QME panel request denied due process and substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not shown to warrant removal.

From the decision · page 3The WCJ's October 7, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (F&O) determined that panel number 7695740 was invalid because the panel request listed an incorrect

Applicant's QME panel request listed an incorrect claim number and primary treating physician.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This denied due process to the defense and invalidated the QME panel request, leading to the denial of removal.

From the decision · page 3The WCJ's October 7, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (F&O) determined that panel number 7695740 was invalid because the panel request listed an incorrect

Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.

The petition for removal was evaluated under the removal standard because the WCJ's Findings of Fact were relevant only to an interim procedural issue of QME selection.

From the decision · page 1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final'"]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not

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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

The petition for removal was denied because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

From the decision · page 3Removal 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).)

AD Rule 30 requires accurate information in QME panel requests, including correct claim number and primary treating physician.

The incorrect claim number and primary treating physician in the panel request denied due process and invalidated the QME panel.

From the decision · page 3The process by which a party may seek the issuance of a panel of QMEs is addressed in AD Rule 30 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30). The Rule requires that represented parties submit a request for a panel of QMEs electronically to the DWC Medical Unit, and that they identify the following elements:

Incorrect claim number and primary treating physician listed in QME panel request

From the decision · page 3The WCJ's October 7, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (F&O) determined that panel number 7695740 was invalid because the panel request listed an incorrect