What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted; WCJ's May 19, 2023 Order Vacating Submission amended to keep AME Dr. Sanders' reports in evidence; case submission vacated for further record development.
Petition for Removal granted, vacating submission of case for record development due to unavailability of AME Dr. Sanders; reports of Dr. Sanders remain in evidence.
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 Appeals Board granted removal because the AME Dr. Sanders was unavailable for further reporting or cross-examination, but the reports remain in evidence to provide relevant information for adjudication; the case submission was vacated for further record development.
From the decision · page 2Here, applicant and SCIF have previously selected Alan Sanders, M.D., as the AME in orthopedic medicine. However, the parties agree that AME Dr. Sanders is no longer available for additional reporting or cross-examination. The WCJ's May 19, 2023 Order states that "[b]ased on good cause found to strike the AME reports of Dr. Alan Sanders, who is unavailable for further reporting or cross-examination, and such further reporting is necessary for a complete record and in the interests of due process, SUBMISSION OF THE CASE IS HEREBY VACATED for purposes of development of the record." (Order Vacating Submission, dated May 19, 2023.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
AME Dr. Sanders is no longer available for further reporting or cross-examination.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This unavailability justified vacating the case submission and granting removal to allow further record development.
From the decision · page 2Here, applicant and SCIF have previously selected Alan Sanders, M.D., as the AME in orthopedic medicine. However, the parties agree that AME Dr. Sanders is no longer available for additional reporting or cross-examination. The WCJ's May 19, 2023 Order states that "[b]ased on good cause found to strike the AME reports of Dr. Alan Sanders, who is unavailable for further reporting or cross-examination, and such further reporting is necessary for a complete record and in the interests of due process, SUBMISSION OF THE CASE IS HEREBY VACATED for purposes of development of the record." (Order Vacating Submission, dated May 19, 2023.)
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.
Reports contain useful history and context relevant to the adjudication despite unavailability for further reporting or cross-examination.
The WCJ and Appeals Board found the reports relevant and useful for the new examining physician and the adjudication process.
From the decision · page 2Here, applicant and SCIF have previously selected Alan Sanders, M.D., as the AME in orthopedic medicine. However, the parties agree that AME Dr. Sanders is no longer available for additional reporting or cross-examination. The WCJ's May 19, 2023 Order states that "[b]ased on good cause found to strike the AME reports of Dr. Alan Sanders, who is unavailable for further reporting or cross-examination, and such further reporting is necessary for a complete record and in the interests of due process, SUBMISSION OF THE CASE IS HEREBY VACATED for purposes of development of the record." (Order Vacating Submission, dated May 19, 2023.)
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)
Removal granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate remedy.
The Appeals Board found SCIF showed irreparable harm due to unavailability of AME Dr. Sanders and that reconsideration would not be adequate.
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); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 280, fn. 2.) Additionally, 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).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Unavailability of AME Dr. Sanders for further reporting or cross-examination
From the decision · page 2Here, applicant and SCIF have previously selected Alan Sanders, M.D., as the AME in orthopedic medicine. However, the parties agree that AME Dr. Sanders is no longer available for additional reporting or cross-examination. The WCJ's May 19, 2023 Order states that "[b]ased on good cause found to strike the AME reports of Dr. Alan Sanders, who is unavailable for further reporting or cross-examination, and such further reporting is necessary for a complete record and in the interests of due process, SUBMISSION OF THE CASE IS HEREBY VACATED for purposes of development of the record." (Order Vacating Submission, dated May 19, 2023.)
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.