What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal denied
Petition for Removal of the Findings and Orders issued by WCJ on September 9, 2024, denying removal and recommending replacement 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.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order replacing the panel, and reconsideration is an adequate remedy if adverse final decision issues.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a Petition for Removal of the Findings and Orders issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 9, 2024, in which the WCJ found that due to an irreparable ambiguity regarding panel strikes of the parties, a new panel is appropriate to replace existing panel number 7709310. The WCJ ordered the medical director of the division of workers' compensation (DWC) to issue a replacement panel, and further ordered that the next set of strikes by the parties as to that replacement panel occur via email to avoid a duplicate strike.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
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.
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.
Struck by both parties as a QME from the panel, with dispute over strike timing and validity.
Dispute over the timeliness and validity of strikes involving Dr. Galloni was central to the removal petition.
From the decision · page 2The stipulated facts as confirmed by defendant in their petition, and as set forth in the Minutes of Hearing (MOH) of September 9, 2024, state that panel number 7709310 in the field of orthopedics issued on July 3, 2024. On July 9, 2024 applicant struck Luigi Galloni, M.D. from the panel. On July 11, 2024 defendant struck Dr. Galloni as well, unaware of the applicant's strike.
Struck untimely by defendant after awareness of prior strike on Dr. Galloni.
The untimely strike of Dr. Sirajullah by defendant was a key fact in denying removal.
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
Struck by applicant as a second strike on the same date as defendant's untimely strike of Dr. Sirajullah.
The timing of strikes on Dr. Gross and Dr. Sirajullah was relevant to the panel replacement order.
From the decision · page 3On July 12, 2024, defendant became aware of Luigi Galloni, M.D.'s strike by applicant's attorney. On July 18, 20242, defendant struck Mohammed Sirjullah, M.D. from the panel. Also on July 18, 2024, applicant issued a second strike of evaluator Elliot Gross, M.D. from the panel.
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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to deny removal petition due to lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and adequacy of reconsideration.
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.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
stipulated relevant dates for strikes and timeliness
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.
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.