What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration or Removal challenging the WCJ's denial of a replacement QME panel request, treated as timely and reviewed under the removal standard for interlocutory decisions.
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.
Defendant did not show that a replacement QME panel was warranted because there was no evidence the QME failed to receive information as required by section 4062.3(b), and defendant's reliance on Pettit was misplaced due to factual differences and misrepresentations.
From the decision · page 2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, defendant is only challenging the WCJ's finding that defendant's request for a replacement qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel is denied. This is an interlocutory decision regarding discovery. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant conceded there was no evidence that QME Dr. Robert Weinmann received the information sent by applicant in violation of section 4062.3(b).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This concession undermined defendant's basis for requesting a replacement QME panel, leading to denial of the petition.
From the decision · page 2Defendant concedes that there is no evidence that the QME Dr. Robert Weinmann received the information that applicant sent to him in violation of section 4062.3(b). (Defendant's Petition
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.
No evidence that QME Dr. Robert Weinmann received the information sent to him by applicant in violation of section 4062.3(b).
Defendant conceded lack of evidence that the QME received the information sent by applicant, which was central to the request for a replacement QME panel.
From the decision · page 2Defendant concedes that there is no evidence that the QME Dr. Robert Weinmann received the information that applicant sent to him in violation of section 4062.3(b). (Defendant's Petition
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a)
Petition for removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate.
Applied to defendant's petition for removal of interlocutory decision.
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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10561(b)(5)(A), now 10421(b)(5)(A)
Sanctions may be imposed for misrepresentations in filings with the Appeals Board.
Warning issued to defendant regarding misrepresentations in petition.
From the decision · page 4We are similarly troubled in this matter by defendant's misrepresentations in its Petition regarding the facts of the Pettit case. Defendant is reminded that a party or attorney may be sanctioned for executing a declaration or verification to any petition, pleading or other document filed with the Appeals Board that contains substantial misrepresentations of facts. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10561(b)(5)(A), now § 10421(b)(5)(A) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Lab. Code, § 5813.) If the defendant here seeks to learn from what occurred in Pettit, the defendant's apparent misrepresentation of facts in that matter is not conduct to emulate.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant conceded no evidence that QME Dr. Robert Weinmann received the information sent by applicant in violation of section 4062.3(b).
From the decision · page 2Defendant concedes that there is no evidence that the QME Dr. Robert Weinmann received the information that applicant sent to him in violation of section 4062.3(b). (Defendant's Petition
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.