What the panel ordered
Petitions for Reconsideration filed by applicant are dismissed as not aggrieved and because the Notice of Intention to Compel is not a final order or decision.
Applicant filed Petitions for Reconsideration opposing a Notice of Intention to Compel Regular Physician Exam issued by the WCJ; the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the Petition; the Appeals Board reviewed the Petitions and the WCJ Report and dismissed the Petitions as the applicant was not aggrieved.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold June 12, 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.
The Notice of Intention to Compel is not a final order or decision, so the Petitions for Reconsideration are not appropriate and the applicant is not aggrieved. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petitions accordingly.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ issued an NIT, which is not a final order or decision, thus a Petition for
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Notice of Intention to Compel is not a final order or decision.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, the Petitions for Reconsideration were dismissed as not appropriate.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ issued an NIT, which is not a final order or decision, thus a Petition for
Applicant refused to participate in the PQME process and failed to meaningfully participate or cooperate in discovery.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This behavior supported the WCJ's motion to declare applicant a vexatious litigant and justified dismissal of the Petitions for Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6litigant pursuant to WCAB Rule 10430. In support of his motion, the WCJ cites his January 28, 2022 Report, wherein he requested that the Appeals Board review the file and take appropriate action under WCAB Rule 10430 because of applicant's "...repetitive filings and arguments." Additionally, the WCJ referenced the Appeals Board's admonishment to applicant in our Opinion and Decision of June 12, 2024. The WCJ states in his January 22, 2026 Report that applicant has continued the above mentioned behavior and "failed to meaningfully participate or cooperate in discovery in this matter." Also, the WCJ points out that the Petition for Reconsideration here was filed "when there is no underlying order" and that "This filing has strained the limited time and resources of the District Office."
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.
Appointed as regular physician to resolve underlying medical issues due to applicant's refusal to participate in PQME process; applicant found permanent and stationary by PTP but disagrees with findings.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND We will briefly review the relevant facts. Applicant, while employed by defendant as a driver on or about July 26, 2016, sustained injury to his left upper extremities (amputation of the left little finger and left wrist injury) arising out of and in the course of employment. On March 28, 2025, the WCJ issued Joint Orders appointing Dr. Craemer as a regular physician pursuant to Labor Code section 57011. As relevant herein, in the Opinion, the WCJ stated: What should be noted, as was noted in the previous hearings, is that the Applicant has been found Permanent and Stationary by his Primary Treating Physician (hereinafter PTP). Applicant disagrees with the findings of the PTP, but does not wish to resolve his case. If there is a disagreement with the PTP, the parties are mandated to go through the PQME process. Applicant has repeatedly refused this process. As this process is being refused, the undersigned will utilize a Regular Physician to resolve the underlying medical issues. The Objection fails to state Good Cause to oppose the NOI. The undersigned will therefore issue an Order consistent with the NOI.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900, 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Maranian v. WCAB (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 (Lab. Code, §§ 5900, 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068).
The Notice of Intention to Compel is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so the Petitions for Reconsideration are not proper and must be dismissed.
From the decision · page 4II. A 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.
Lab. Code, § 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board (Lab. Code, § 5909).
The Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days of transmission, so the petition was timely.
From the decision · page 3Former 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:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's refusal to participate in PQME process and failure to meaningfully participate or cooperate in discovery
From the decision · page 6litigant pursuant to WCAB Rule 10430. In support of his motion, the WCJ cites his January 28, 2022 Report, wherein he requested that the Appeals Board review the file and take appropriate action under WCAB Rule 10430 because of applicant's "...repetitive filings and arguments." Additionally, the WCJ referenced the Appeals Board's admonishment to applicant in our Opinion and Decision of June 12, 2024. The WCJ states in his January 22, 2026 Report that applicant has continued the above mentioned behavior and "failed to meaningfully participate or cooperate in discovery in this matter." Also, the WCJ points out that the Petition for Reconsideration here was filed "when there is no underlying order" and that "This filing has strained the limited time and resources of the District Office."
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.