ADJ9085188 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as June 24, 2025 Findings and Order was not a final order; Petition for Removal denied for failure to show irreparable harm or substantial prejudice.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant seeking review of June 24, 2025 Findings and Order; WCJ Report recommended denial of reconsideration.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 16, 2024.

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.

QME/AME processDefendant prevailedmultiple body parts

The panel found that the QME process under sections 4060 and 4062.2 applies because the applicant's date of injury for cumulative injury claims is determined under section 5412, which depends on the date the applicant first suffered disability and had knowledge, not the last date of injurious exposure in 1985. The claim was filed in 2013, so the current QME process applies. The applicant did not show irreparable harm or substantial prejudice from applying the current QME process.

From the decision · page 1

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 39; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068

A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.

The panel dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the June 24, 2025 Findings and Order was not a final order, as it only addressed evidence gathering and did not decide substantive rights or liabilities.

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

The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.

The panel denied the petition for removal because the applicant did not demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice from the QME process order, and reconsideration was an adequate remedy if a final decision issues.

From the decision · page 5Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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.) A petitioner must also 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).)

ADJ9085188 · September 10, 2025

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

About this page