ADJ20009316 · July 7, 2026

The Board found the strike valid despite defendant's procedural objections, emphasizing the informality allowed in workers' compensation proceedings and that the defendant was aware of the strike.

From the decision · page 8Here, as acknowledged in the Petition, defendant stipulated to receipt of the October 22, 2025 email from applicant’s counsel striking Dr. Polushkin. Defendant was thus apprised of applicant’s valid and timely strike. Accordingly, to the extent that defendant seeks reconsideration, the Petition is dismissed, and to the extent that defendant seeks removal of the April 23, 2026 F&O, the Petition is denied.

Defendant stipulated to receipt of the October 22, 2025 email striking Dr. Polushkin.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Indicates actual notice of the strike, supporting its validity despite procedural objections.

From the decision · page 8Here, as acknowledged in the Petition, defendant stipulated to receipt of the October 22, 2025 email from applicant’s counsel striking Dr. Polushkin. Defendant was thus apprised of applicant’s valid and timely strike. Accordingly, to the extent that defendant seeks reconsideration, the Petition is dismissed, and to the extent that defendant seeks removal of the April 23, 2026 F&O, the Petition is denied.

Struck from the QME panel by applicant's valid strike.

From the decision · page 2Applicant claimed that while employed by defendant as a driver during the period from January 1, 2020 through October 5, 2024, she sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, right shoulder, right arm, right elbow, right hand, right fingertips, bilateral legs, bilateral hips, bilateral knees, and sleep. On September 19, 2025, defendant requested a Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panel in the specialty of dentistry, and on October 7, 2025, panel number 3734606 issued. (Exhibit 1) On October 16, 2025, defendant sent a letter to applicant’s attorney with a copy of the QME panel and language indicating their strike of Dr. Askari from the panel. (Exhibit 2). On October 22, 2025, applicant attorney’s office emailed the defense attorney indicating that they were striking David Polushkin, D.D.S. from the dental QME panel (Exhibit 4). On October 23, 2025, defendant sent a letter to applicant alleging that the October 22, 2025 was “procedurally defective and d[id] not constitute proper service of a panel strike” because the email was improperly served, insufficiently formal, inadequate in documentation, and deficient in authority.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be filed within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.

The Board found the petition timely filed as the case was transmitted on May 14, 2026 and the decision issued on July 7, 2026.

From the decision · page 3Preliminarily, former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

WCAB Rule 10625

Service of documents shall be made on attorney or agent of record unless party is unrepresented; formal service is not required for a strike.

The Board held that formal service of a strike is not required and informality is allowed in workers' compensation proceedings.

From the decision · page 6(Lab. Code, § 4062.2(a)-(b).) Here, defendant contends that applicant’s October 22, 2025 strike of Dr. Polushkin was defectively served and references WCAB Rule 10625(b)(1) pertaining to service. (Petition, pp. 5, 15.) WCAB Rule 10625 states that:

Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171

Petitions for reconsideration are only from final orders; interlocutory orders are not final and cannot be reconsidered.

The Board found the WCJ's order was interlocutory and not a final order, thus petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 4We also find it relevant here to discuss the distinction between a petition for reconsideration and a petition for removal. A petition for reconsideration is taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order is defined as one that determines “any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” or a “threshold” issue fundamental to a claim for benefits. (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 [43Cal.Comp.Cases 661]; Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, injury AOE/COE, jurisdiction, the existence of an employment relationship, and statute of limitations. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

Defendant stipulated to receipt of the October 22, 2025 email striking Dr. Polushkin, indicating actual notice of the strike.

From the decision · page 8Here, as acknowledged in the Petition, defendant stipulated to receipt of the October 22, 2025 email from applicant’s counsel striking Dr. Polushkin. Defendant was thus apprised of applicant’s valid and timely strike. Accordingly, to the extent that defendant seeks reconsideration, the Petition is dismissed, and to the extent that defendant seeks removal of the April 23, 2026 F&O, the Petition is denied.