What the panel ordered
The Petition for Removal is granted, the December 28, 2023 Finding and Order is rescinded, and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.
Defendant filed a Petition for Removal in response to the WCJ Finding and Order issued at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on December 28, 2023, which ordered additional QME panels without specifying specialties or evidentiary basis.
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 WCJ's Finding and Order lacked evidentiary support and did not specify the specialties for additional QME panels, violating due process and substantial evidence requirements, warranting removal and rescission.
From the decision · page 4In the December 28, 2023 Minutes of Hearing in which the F&O issued, the WCJ states as follows:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ issued a Finding and Order for additional QME panels without specifying specialties or evidentiary basis.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of evidentiary support and specificity violated due process and substantial evidence requirements, leading to the removal of the order.
From the decision · page 5Here, it appears that the WCJ based his decision solely on a determination that the applicant was entitled to additional panels, but failed to provide a basis for such decision, nor the evidence upon which he relied. Further, the Finding and Order that issued does not specify the specialty or specialties for which he has determined good cause exists to issue additional panels.
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.
Indicated applicant's allegations are non-industrial and requested WCAB assistance for additional panels in psyche and musculoskeletal specialties.
The QME report indicated the need for additional panels and that applicant's injuries were non-industrial, which was central to the dispute over additional panels.
From the decision · page 2On February 7, 2023, applicant was evaluated by QME James Schmitz, M.D., in the field of internal medicine. On March 3, 2023, defendant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) on the issue of permanent disability, in which it states that the "QME indicates applicant's allegations are non-industrial. WCAB assistance is requested." (DOR, March 3, 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); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate remedy.
The defendant met the standard by showing the WCJ's order lacked evidentiary basis and due process, warranting removal.
From the decision · page 3Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cortez) (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kleemann) (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); 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).)
Lab. Code, 5903, 5952(d); Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10787
Decisions must be supported by substantial evidence and the record must be adequate to understand the basis for the decision.
The WCJ's order lacked evidentiary support and did not specify specialties, violating these standards.
From the decision · page 4Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record. At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidence was offered, identified, or admitted at the hearing for the WCJ's Finding and Order; the WCJ did not provide a summary of evidence relied upon.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ does not discuss the reasoning for his decision. Additionally, no evidence was offered, identified, or admitted at the hearing. While there was a court reporter taking down the Minutes of Hearing, Finding and Order of the WCJ, the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence he relied upon in making his decision.
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.