ADJ15636538 · April 6, 2026

The WCJ and WCAB found the Petition to Reopen was not fatally flawed despite lacking specificity, as it put defendant on notice of the grounds and allowed discovery to proceed; defendant's Petition to Dismiss was denied without prejudice, allowing refiling if no new disability is proven.

From the decision · page 5Next, defendant argues that applicant's Petition to Reopen should have been dismissed because it was skeletal. (Petition, p. 4, January 30, 2026, lines 1-15.) In Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 590, 594-595, 40 Cal. Comp. Cases 784, cited by the WCJ in the Report, the Court of Appeals found that a petition to reopen that failed to specify the facts relied on, and was therefore technically insufficient, was not fatally flawed. We reach a similar conclusion here. Applicant titled her petition to reopen, "Petition to Reopen for New and

Applicant's Petition to Reopen was titled and reasoned to indicate worsening medical condition, sufficient to put defendant on notice despite lack of specificity.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This justified denying defendant's Petition to Dismiss and allowing the Petition to Reopen to proceed.

From the decision · page 6Further Disability/Good Cause per Labor Code 5410 and 5803," and the reason provided for the Petition to Reopen was, "[a]pplicant's medical condition has worsened, resulting in additional permanent disability and ongoing need for medical treatment." Although applicant's Petition to Reopen lacked specificity, the title of and reason provided for applicant's Petition to Reopen were sufficient to put defendant on notice that the grounds for applicant's Petition to Reopen were Labor Code sections 5410 and 5803 due to worsening medical condition.

Parties proceeded with discovery including PQME re-evaluation reports by Dr. Anand Shah, undermining defendant's argument for dismissal.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This showed the defendant was not prejudiced or irreparably harmed and that reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 17In the case of ADJ15636538 with the date of injury as December 8, 2021, the five years for the applicant to file a PTRO has not run. Furthermoe, the parties went forward with a PQME re- evaluation by Dr. Anand Shah who issued his reports dated September 5, 2025 and September 25, 2025, both of which were admitted into evidence. From this much, it is clear that the parties are moving forward with discovery, which appears to fly I the face of the defendant's position that the PTRO should be dismissed. Assuming arguendo that the defendant prevailed, it makes little sense to later gather the medical evidence from Dr. Shah who may support new and further disability and then have the applicant re-file prior to December 8, 2026. The defendant's position defies logic and serves only to promote delays, time and cost inefficiency, and increased judicial resources all of which fly in the face of our state's constitutional directives. The applicant is entitled to due process. She timely alleged new and further disability, and she is entitled to secure the medical evidence which will either prove or disprove her allegations. The defendant's petition should remain denied without prejudice. If the applicant fails to prove any new and further disability, the defendant would be free to file its petitions to dismiss once again and set forth its arguments in support thereof.

No changes to prior reports; recommended re-evaluation if stipulation for new and further disability.

The PQME report was considered in denying the Petition to Dismiss and allowing the Petition to Reopen to proceed.

From the decision · page 9At the MSC, and over the applicant's objection, the matter was set for trial before this court on October 6, 2025. Between the MSC and the trial, on September 5, 2025, the applicant was re-evaluated by Dr. Anand Shah as the panel qualified medical evaluator ("PQME"), presumably as to her second injury on December 8, 2021. The report, however, was not available at the time of the trial, and although the trial was set on the issue of the defendant's petition to dismiss both PTROs due to their skeletal nature, the court declined to move forward at that time, and instead chose to continue the matter. By the next trial on January 14, 2026 Dr. Shah's report was on file with the court. He took a history, conducted an examination, and reviewed his prior medical reports, concluding that "...at this time, there are no changes to my prior reports." Also issued by the doctor was a supplement report dated September 25, 2025 generated by applicant's counsel's correspondence, concluding that a re- evaluation is recommended "...if there is stipulation (sic) for new and further disability...". Aside from the pleadings that were subject to the court's judicial notice, the parties jointly submitted both PQME reports into evidence. Again, the court was presented with a narrow and

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.

Applied to deny defendant's Petition for Removal as no significant prejudice or irreparable harm shown and reconsideration is adequate.

From the decision · page 4Removal 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 significant 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).)

Applicant's Petition to Reopen titled and reasoned to indicate worsening medical condition, sufficient to put defendant on notice despite lack of specificity.

From the decision · page 6Further Disability/Good Cause per Labor Code 5410 and 5803," and the reason provided for the Petition to Reopen was, "[a]pplicant's medical condition has worsened, resulting in additional permanent disability and ongoing need for medical treatment." Although applicant's Petition to Reopen lacked specificity, the title of and reason provided for applicant's Petition to Reopen were sufficient to put defendant on notice that the grounds for applicant's Petition to Reopen were Labor Code sections 5410 and 5803 due to worsening medical condition.

Parties proceeding with discovery including PQME re-evaluation reports by Dr. Anand Shah, undermining defendant's argument for dismissal.

From the decision · page 17In the case of ADJ15636538 with the date of injury as December 8, 2021, the five years for the applicant to file a PTRO has not run. Furthermoe, the parties went forward with a PQME re- evaluation by Dr. Anand Shah who issued his reports dated September 5, 2025 and September 25, 2025, both of which were admitted into evidence. From this much, it is clear that the parties are moving forward with discovery, which appears to fly I the face of the defendant's position that the PTRO should be dismissed. Assuming arguendo that the defendant prevailed, it makes little sense to later gather the medical evidence from Dr. Shah who may support new and further disability and then have the applicant re-file prior to December 8, 2026. The defendant's position defies logic and serves only to promote delays, time and cost inefficiency, and increased judicial resources all of which fly in the face of our state's constitutional directives. The applicant is entitled to due process. She timely alleged new and further disability, and she is entitled to secure the medical evidence which will either prove or disprove her allegations. The defendant's petition should remain denied without prejudice. If the applicant fails to prove any new and further disability, the defendant would be free to file its petitions to dismiss once again and set forth its arguments in support thereof.