ADJ17808664 · October 22, 2025

Removal granted because the WCJ acknowledged error and recommended amendment of the F&O; no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown by defendant; removal is proper to correct admitted error.

From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings of Fact and Order issued on June 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that the opinions of multiple evaluators did not constitute substantial medical evidence and ordered a discovery plan for obtaining further reporting.

WCJ acknowledged error in original Findings of Fact and Order and recommended amendment

Favours Defendant prevailed

Removal granted to correct admitted error

From the decision · page 1We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal only to amend the F&O to indicate that the reporting of Dr. Edelman was substantial evidence, and thus no further development of the record is necessary in that regard, but otherwise deny removal on all other issues raised.

No evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supports granting removal

From the decision · page 2To the extent that defendant argues that it has been substantially prejudiced or irreparably harmed, we find no evidence in the record to the support this. Applicant has presented multiple reports from multiple physicians providing opinions that applicant's injury is industrial. We would remind defendant of AD Rule 10109, which states, in pertinent part:

Multiple medical reports support applicant's industrial injury claim

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports applicant's position but does not prevent removal

From the decision · page 2To the extent that defendant argues that it has been substantially prejudiced or irreparably harmed, we find no evidence in the record to the support this. Applicant has presented multiple reports from multiple physicians providing opinions that applicant's injury is industrial. We would remind defendant of AD Rule 10109, which states, in pertinent part:

Medical opinions from Renee Kohanim, D.C., do not constitute substantial medical evidence.

The WCJ found that the opinions of Renee Kohanim, D.C., and Dabney Blankenship, Ph.D., do not constitute substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 3FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The medical opinions from Renee Kohanim, D.C., and Dabney

Medical opinions from Dabney Blankenship, Ph.D., do not constitute substantial medical evidence.

The WCJ found that the opinions of Renee Kohanim, D.C., and Dabney Blankenship, Ph.D., do not constitute substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 3FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The medical opinions from Renee Kohanim, D.C., and Dabney

Studies of David Edelman, M.D., constitute substantial medical evidence.

The WCJ found that the studies of David Edelman, M.D., constitute substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 32. The studies of David Edelman, M.D., (Applicant's Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9) constitute substantial medical evidence.

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 is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate

Removal granted because WCJ acknowledged error and recommended amendment of F&O; no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown

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); 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).) Here, the WCJ has acknowledged error and requested that the F&O be modified to correct for such error. Thus, removal is proper in this case to correct admitted error.

AD Rule 10109

Claims administrator must conduct a reasonable and timely investigation upon notice of injury or claim

Defendant must investigate claim fully and fairly; cannot restrict investigation to objections or defenses only

From the decision · page 2To the extent that defendant argues that it has been substantially prejudiced or irreparably harmed, we find no evidence in the record to the support this. Applicant has presented multiple reports from multiple physicians providing opinions that applicant's injury is industrial. We would remind defendant of AD Rule 10109, which states, in pertinent part:

Labor Code section 5502(e)(3)

If defendant disagrees with primary treater's conclusion, must object and obtain QME opinion

Defendant's position that it need not investigate claim is not supported by Labor Code requirements

From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that the discovery plan ordered by the WCJ violates Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) and that the reporting of the current evaluators constitutes substantial medical evidence.

Multiple reports from multiple physicians providing opinions that applicant's injury is industrial

From the decision · page 2To the extent that defendant argues that it has been substantially prejudiced or irreparably harmed, we find no evidence in the record to the support this. Applicant has presented multiple reports from multiple physicians providing opinions that applicant's injury is industrial. We would remind defendant of AD Rule 10109, which states, in pertinent part: