What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied; October 12, 2020 Findings and Order affirmed
Petition for reconsideration or removal of the October 12, 2020 Findings and Order by the WCJ
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 Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and that reconsideration was an adequate remedy, thus affirming the WCJ's decision that the PQME selection was valid despite the strike dispute and replacement request.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative removal, regarding of the October 12, 2020 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that the selection of Steven Meier, M.D., as panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) from panel number 7354140 is valid.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Both parties struck the same name from the PQME panel and applicant scheduled an appointment with Dr. Steven Meier, one of the two remaining physicians.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact was central to the defendant's request for replacement of the PQME panel and the Appeals Board's review of the validity of the PQME selection.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative removal, regarding of the October 12, 2020 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that the selection of Steven Meier, M.D., as panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) from panel number 7354140 is valid.
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.
Selected as panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) from panel number 7354140; selection found valid by WCJ and affirmed by Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative removal, regarding of the October 12, 2020 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that the selection of Steven Meier, M.D., as panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) from panel number 7354140 is valid.
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) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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 rarely exercised by the Appeals Board; removal granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denying removal and that reconsideration was an adequate remedy, thus denying removal and affirming the WCJ's 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).) Here, based on our review of the record, and under the circumstances as set forth in the record before us, we are not persuaded that significant
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.