What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; April 24, 2023 order granting additional QME panels rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Defendant sought removal of the WCJ's order granting additional QME panels in internal medicine and psychiatry. The Appeals Board reviewed the record and granted removal, rescinding the order and returning the matter for further proceedings.
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 WCJ issued an order granting additional QME panels without holding a hearing, creating a record, or providing a summary of the evidence relied upon, as required by law. The Appeals Board found this was improper and rescinded the order, remanding for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 4In the April 24, 2023 Order granting applicant's Petition for additional QME panels, the WCJ merely states: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The DIR Medical Unit shall issue an additional panels QME List in the area of Internal Medicine (MMM) and Psychiatry (MPD.)" The WCJ does not discuss her reasoning for her decision. Additionally, the Order issued without a hearing, no minutes were filed, no testimony was taken, and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence she relied on in making her decision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ issued the order granting additional QME panels without holding a hearing, creating a record, or providing a summary of the evidence relied upon.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural deficiency violated statutory and regulatory requirements, necessitating rescission and remand.
From the decision · page 4In the April 24, 2023 Order granting applicant's Petition for additional QME panels, the WCJ merely states: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The DIR Medical Unit shall issue an additional panels QME List in the area of Internal Medicine (MMM) and Psychiatry (MPD.)" The WCJ does not discuss her reasoning for her decision. Additionally, the Order issued without a hearing, no minutes were filed, no testimony was taken, and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence she relied on in making her decision.
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.
Evaluated applicant on October 12, 2022; findings referenced in dispute over additional QME panels.
From the decision · page 1According to defendant's Petition, on October 12, 2022, applicant was evaluated by PQME orthopedic surgeon Michael Tooke, M.D.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
WCJ must make findings on all facts, state reasons, and base decisions on admitted evidence in the record.
The WCJ failed to provide findings or a summary of evidence, requiring remand.
From the decision · page 4In the April 24, 2023 Order granting applicant's Petition for additional QME panels, the WCJ merely states: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The DIR Medical Unit shall issue an additional panels QME List in the area of Internal Medicine (MMM) and Psychiatry (MPD.)" The WCJ does not discuss her reasoning for her decision. Additionally, the Order issued without a hearing, no minutes were filed, no testimony was taken, and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence she relied on in making her decision.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. WCAB; Kleemann v. WCAB
Removal is granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The Board found the lack of an evidentiary record and reasoning in the WCJ's order warranted removal and remand.
From the decision · page 2DISCUSSION 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 shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Additionally, 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)1.) A WCJ is required to "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order, or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5502, 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761;
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidentiary record was created before the WCJ issued the order granting additional QME panels.
From the decision · page 4In the April 24, 2023 Order granting applicant's Petition for additional QME panels, the WCJ merely states: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The DIR Medical Unit shall issue an additional panels QME List in the area of Internal Medicine (MMM) and Psychiatry (MPD.)" The WCJ does not discuss her reasoning for her decision. Additionally, the Order issued without a hearing, no minutes were filed, no testimony was taken, and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence she relied on in making her decision.
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.