Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal of a panel qualified medical evaluator requires showing significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is not an adequate remedy (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)).
The petitioner did not show entitlement to removal except to amend the Findings and Order regarding report admissibility.
From the decision · page 2We affirm the WCJ's Order to select a replacement panel qualified medical evaluator.
Removal 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).) In this case, applicant has not shown that she is entitled to removal
of the decision to replace the panel qualified medical evaluator.
Lab. Code, 4628(e)
Anti-ghostwriting statute excludes reports if the physician did not personally perform the evaluation (Lab. Code, 4628(e)).
Dr. Scheinbaum's report was admissible because he personally performed the review and evaluation.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ also cited section 4628(e) in finding the report inadmissible. (Lab. Code,
§ 4628(e).) Section 4628 is an anti-ghostwriting statute and a physician's failure to comply with
the statute renders a report inadmissible. (See Scheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868, 881.) However, Dr. Scheinbaum's report reflects that he
performed the review of records, testing and evaluation of applicant himself. (Joint Exhibit J1,
PQME Report Joel Scheinbaum, M.D., March 25, 2022, p. 1.) Thus, there is not a basis to exclude
his report from evidence under section 4628. The finding will be amended to state that the report
is admissible and the order stating his report is not admissible as evidence will be removed (Order
No. 3).
Lab. Code, 4064(d), 5703(a), 5708
Medical reports are generally admissible if obtained in accordance with the Labor Code (Lab. Code, 4064(d), 5703(a), 5708).
The November 16, 2021 report was found admissible as it complied with the Labor Code.
From the decision · page 2However, we will grant removal to amend the Findings and Order to find that the
November 16, 2021, report of Dr. Scheinbaum is admissible. Statutory and case law favor the
admissibility of medical reports provided they were obtained in accordance with the Labor Code.
(See Lab. Code, § 4064(d), 5703(a), 5708; e.g., Valdez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 57
Cal.4th 1231 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 1209].) The Labor Code does not require us to exclude late
reports from evidence.