What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.p. 8
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the May 15, 2026 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration and Granting Petition for Removal and Decision after Removal, which rescinded the January 8, 2026 Findings and Order by the workers’ compensation arbitrator and held applicant entitled to designate Dr. Noriega as IME for cumulative injury claim.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 15, 2026.
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.
Applicant was entitled to designate Dr. Noriega as IME for the cumulative injury claim because applicant was prejudiced by being unable to provide information or raise inquiries to Dr. Teichera, violating due process rights. The Appeals Board held that denying a separate IME would violate due process and that applicant was within rights under the ADR Agreement to seek reconsideration and removal.
From the decision · page 68.) Thus, based upon the language of the ADR Agreement, applicant was within his rights when he sought reconsideration of the January 8, 2026 F&O. Defendant further asserts that applicant “did not suffer prejudice” and was not “denied due process” as applicant “agreed to strike language from the cover letter” to Dr. Teichera on the issue of varicose veins but sought to designate Dr. Noriega instead as he was “unhappy with [Dr. Teicheira’s] initial opinion[.]” (Petition, p. 10.) We disagree. As iterated in our O&O, there was no stipulation between the parties for Dr. Teicheira to act as IME on all of applicant’s claimed injuries. Further, applicant agreed to withhold information pertaining to the cumulative injury in anticipation of another evaluation with a different IME. This was prejudicial to applicant in that he was unable to provide his position on the
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was unable to provide information or raise inquiries to Dr. Teichera regarding the cumulative injury due to defendant's objection and cover letter revision.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This prejudiced applicant and violated due process rights, supporting the decision to allow designation of a different IME.
From the decision · page 68.) Thus, based upon the language of the ADR Agreement, applicant was within his rights when he sought reconsideration of the January 8, 2026 F&O. Defendant further asserts that applicant “did not suffer prejudice” and was not “denied due process” as applicant “agreed to strike language from the cover letter” to Dr. Teichera on the issue of varicose veins but sought to designate Dr. Noriega instead as he was “unhappy with [Dr. Teicheira’s] initial opinion[.]” (Petition, p. 10.) We disagree. As iterated in our O&O, there was no stipulation between the parties for Dr. Teicheira to act as IME on all of applicant’s claimed injuries. Further, applicant agreed to withhold information pertaining to the cumulative injury in anticipation of another evaluation with a different IME. This was prejudicial to applicant in that he was unable to provide his position on the
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.
Concluded no substantial medical evidence that employment caused varicose veins.
Dr. Teichera's report found no substantial medical evidence that employment caused the varicose veins, which was a basis for defendant's denial of the cumulative injury claim.
From the decision · page 3relevant part, that he could not find “any substantial medical evidence that [applicant’s] employment caused the varicose veins[.]” (Exhibit X, p. 25.) In a letter dated August 13, 2025, defendant denied applicant’s cumulative injury claim based upon Dr. Teicheira’s findings. (Exhibit O.) The letter indicated that per an agreement between applicant’s labor organization and defendant, the parties would proceed with the ADR process. (Ibid.; See Exhibit Q.) Following receipt of defendant’s denial, applicant attempted to retain Dr. Noriega as the IME for the cumulative injury claim. An appointment letter dated August 22, 2025 was issued by Dr. Noriega’s office notifying the parties of an October 28, 2025 internal medicine examination. (Exhibit 4.) On August 25, 2025, defendant issued a letter to applicant objecting to the IME with Dr. Noriega on the basis that applicant had been examined by Dr.
Applicant entitled to designate Dr. Noriega as IME for cumulative injury claim after removal of prior F&O denying this.
The Appeals Board granted removal of the prior WCA order and allowed applicant to designate Dr. Noriega as IME, recognizing applicant's due process rights.
From the decision · page 3Applicant sought reconsideration of the F&O and on May 15, 2026, we granted reconsideration and issued an O&O wherein we rescinded the F&O and substituted it with a new F&O, which held that applicant is entitled to designate Dr. Noriega as the IME for the cumulative injury claim.
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)
Petition for removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant and that reconsideration was an adequate remedy, thus denying removal.
From the decision · page 545 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders”].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, and other similar issues. Here, the O&O pertains to an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue—to wit, entitlement to designation of an IME for the cumulative injury claim—and does not determine any substantive right or liability or a threshold issue. Accordingly, although defendant’s Petition was filed as one for reconsideration, it is not a “final” decision, and the removal standard applies. 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 can show that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a). The petitioner must also demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate
Barri v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 428
Due process requires meaningful consideration of the merits with notice and opportunity to be heard; administrative efficiency cannot override due process.
The Appeals Board held that denying a separate IME would violate applicant's due process rights, emphasizing the constitutional requirement to accomplish substantial justice.
From the decision · page 7cumulative injury or pose any specific questions to Dr. Teicheira for him to address during his examination of applicant related to compensability and other relevant issues with respect to the cumulative injury. Given that applicant was unable to provide information or raise inquiries to which he is otherwise entitled under Administrative Director (A.D.) Rules 35(a)(3) and 35.5(c)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 35(a)(3), 35.5(c)(1)), denying a separate IME with Dr. Noriega would violate the applicant’s due process rights.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant was unable to provide information or raise inquiries to Dr. Teichera regarding the cumulative injury due to defendant's objection and cover letter revision.
From the decision · page 68.) Thus, based upon the language of the ADR Agreement, applicant was within his rights when he sought reconsideration of the January 8, 2026 F&O. Defendant further asserts that applicant “did not suffer prejudice” and was not “denied due process” as applicant “agreed to strike language from the cover letter” to Dr. Teichera on the issue of varicose veins but sought to designate Dr. Noriega instead as he was “unhappy with [Dr. Teicheira’s] initial opinion[.]” (Petition, p. 10.) We disagree. As iterated in our O&O, there was no stipulation between the parties for Dr. Teicheira to act as IME on all of applicant’s claimed injuries. Further, applicant agreed to withhold information pertaining to the cumulative injury in anticipation of another evaluation with a different IME. This was prejudicial to applicant in that he was unable to provide his position on the
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.