ADJ10790108 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Removal granted; WCJ order of February 27, 2023 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and decisionp. 8

Applicant petition for removal from WCJ order of February 27, 2023 barring submission of prior QME and vocational reports to regular physician appointed under Lab. Code § 5701

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 8, 2022.

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.

QME/AME processRemanded

Record inadequate to determine whether prior QME and vocational reports may be submitted to regular physician; matter returned for creation of adequate evidentiary record

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal in response to a February 27, 2023 Order by a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) that neither the reporting of the prior Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) nor “the vocational reporting” may be submitted to the regular physician appointed pursuant to Lab. Code, § 5701.

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)

Removal granted only upon showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy

Applied to determine whether WCJ order barring submission of prior reports to regular physician caused irreparable harm warranting removal

From the decision · page 22 [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;

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

Decisions must be based on admitted evidence in the record and supported by substantial evidence; adequate and complete record is necessary

Applied to require creation of adequate evidentiary record before determining whether prior QME and vocational reports may be submitted to regular physician

From the decision · page 3It is well established that decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” ( Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Board en banc) ( Hamilton ). Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab.

Lab. Code, §§ 4064(d), 4062.3(a), 5703(a)

Even if a report has limited or no evidentiary weight, it may contain relevant information and should generally remain in evidence and be accorded appropriate weight

Applied to support principle that deficient medical-legal reporting should generally remain available for review by evaluating physicians

From the decision · page 5Even in instances where a WCJ or the Appeals Board has determined that a report has limited or no evidentiary weight with respect to the medical-legal conclusions reached by the evaluating physician, or because of other procedural or substantive deficiencies, the report may nonetheless contain information relevant to the determination of issues

ADJ10790108 · May 8, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page