Each party initially struck the same QME, Dr. Luigi Galloni, with defendant's subsequent strike of Dr. Mohammad Sirajullah being untimely.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported the denial of removal and the order for a replacement panel.
From the decision · page 3Thus, defendant's subsequent strike of Mohammad Sirajullah, M.D., which occurred on
July 18, 2024, was untimely, and applicant was thereafter entitled to set an appointment with one
of the remaining panel members. As defendant stipulates that they became aware of both parties
striking Luigi Galloni, M.D. on July 11, 2024, it is unclear why they waited until July 18, 2024 to
strike Dr. Sirajullah, as they still had up to and through July 15, 2024 to do so. The ten (10) day
limit for each party to strike an evaluator fell on July 13, 2024, a Saturday.3
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order replacing the panel.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of demonstrated harm justified denial of removal petition.
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, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's
report, 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 petitioner.
Petitioner's due process rights were not violated as the dispute involved only timeliness of strikes with stipulated dates.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supported the conclusion that no due process violation occurred, affirming the WCJ's order.
From the decision · page 3Petitioner further contends their due process rights have been violated. We note, however,
that the issue in dispute solely involves an analysis regarding the timeliness of actions, for which
the parties stipulated as to the relevant dates. As such, we find that petitioner's due process rights
have not been violated. The order to obtain a replacement panel fails to determination any
substantive rights of the parties at this time.