ADJ16783231 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Removal granted; WCJ's August 1, 2023 decision rescinded; new order denying defendant's Petition to Compel medical releases; case returned to trial level for further proceedings

Petition for Removal of WCJ's August 1, 2023 Findings of Fact and Orders

Read the official decision →

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.

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailedneck · bilateral upper extremities · bilateral wrists

The WCJ's order to disclose medical treatment beyond prior permanent disabilities or impairments exceeded the scope authorized by Labor Code section 4663(d) and was unduly burdensome without showing necessity for written discovery.

From the decision · page 3Section 4663(d) requires that, "[a]n employee who claims an industrial injury shall, upon request, disclose all previous permanent disabilities or physical impairments." (Lab. Code, § 4663(d).) Thus, while the section contemplates disclosure of specified disability or impairment, it does not require the employee to disclose all prior medical treatment. We therefore agree with applicant that the order that she disclose prior medical treatment to specified body parts does not comport with the disclosure required by section 4663(d).

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); 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 granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate

Petition for Removal granted because WCJ's order exceeded statutory disclosure and was unduly burdensome without showing necessity

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 [38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 922, 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 448, 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; 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, § 10955(a).)

Labor Code section 4663(d)

Labor Code section 4663(d) requires disclosure of previous permanent disabilities or physical impairments, not all prior medical treatment

Order to disclose all prior medical treatment does not comport with section 4663(d)

From the decision · page 3Section 4663(d) requires that, "[a]n employee who claims an industrial injury shall, upon request, disclose all previous permanent disabilities or physical impairments." (Lab. Code, § 4663(d).) Thus, while the section contemplates disclosure of specified disability or impairment, it does not require the employee to disclose all prior medical treatment. We therefore agree with applicant that the order that she disclose prior medical treatment to specified body parts does not comport with the disclosure required by section 4663(d).

ADJ16783231 · April 15, 2024

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page