ADJ16783938 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Petition for Removal is granted, the May 24, 2024 Findings and Order is rescinded, and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Defendant filed a Petition for Removal of the WCJ's May 24, 2024 Findings and Order requiring additional QME panels.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The WCJ's May 24, 2024 Findings and Order lacked an evidentiary record and did not comply with due process requirements, necessitating removal and further proceedings.

From the decision · page 4Here, no documents or testimony were admitted into evidence at the May 7, 2024 hearing. The MOH preceding the order is unclear and does not reflect that the parties submitted the issue of additional panels on the pleadings. In the absence of an evidentiary record, and without the ability to review the evidentiary record and the stipulations and the issues, we cannot complete a meaningful review of the Petition for Removal.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

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 if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is inadequate.

The Board found that the absence of an evidentiary record and due process concerns justified granting removal.

From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION 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.) 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).) All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Lab. Code, 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

Labor Code section 5313 requires the WCJ to state reasons or grounds for determinations and base decisions on admitted evidence supported by substantial evidence.

The Board emphasized that the WCJ's order lacked an evidentiary record and did not comply with these requirements.

From the decision · page 3Code, § 5313; see also, Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Labor Code section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 476., citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by Labor Code section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision,

ADJ16783938 · August 28, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page