What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed; petition for removal granted; April 17, 2024 order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as the order was non-final; petition for removal granted; April 17, 2024 order rescinded and matter returned to trial level for further proceedings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 order compelling attendance at a QME evaluation is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order, so reconsideration is dismissed; removal is granted due to lack of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, causing irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The order compelling attendance at a QME evaluation is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order for reconsideration.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This meant the petition for reconsideration was dismissed because only final orders can be reconsidered.
From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.
Applicant did not receive adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before the QME attendance order issued, as there was no Notice of Intention or hearing.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This caused irreparable harm to applicant, justifying removal of the order.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ did not issue an NIT after her review of the Petition to Compel and did not schedule a hearing. Instead, she issued the Order. Although, applicant did not file an objection to the defendant's Petition, applicant did not receive adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard before the Order issued because there was no NIT and no hearing. We observe that applicant's attorney filed the instant Petition apparently as an objection to the QME evaluation, and upon return the WCJ may treat it as an objection. Thus, we believe that applicant has suffered irreparable harm, and we will rescind the Order.
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.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the Joint Order Approving Petition To Compel Attendance at a panel qualified medical evaluation (PQME) with Joseph Hohl, M.D. (Order) on June 10, 2024, dated April 17, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
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 only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders for reconsideration purposes.
The order compelling attendance at a QME evaluation is an interlocutory procedural order and not a final order, so the petition for reconsideration is dismissed.
From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.
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 petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
Applicant suffered irreparable harm due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard before the QME attendance order, so removal is granted.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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, § 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)1.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant did not receive adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before the QME attendance order issued, as there was no Notice of Intention or hearing.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ did not issue an NIT after her review of the Petition to Compel and did not schedule a hearing. Instead, she issued the Order. Although, applicant did not file an objection to the defendant's Petition, applicant did not receive adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard before the Order issued because there was no NIT and no hearing. We observe that applicant's attorney filed the instant Petition apparently as an objection to the QME evaluation, and upon return the WCJ may treat it as an objection. Thus, we believe that applicant has suffered irreparable harm, and we will rescind the Order.
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.