What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award dated March 24, 2025, which found injury AOE/COE and deferred other issues for record development.
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's decision included findings on threshold issues, making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but defendant only challenged interlocutory orders, so the removal standard applied. Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ's decision here includes findings of injury and employment, threshold issues. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Thus, we treat defendant's Petition as one for reconsideration. Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging an interlocutory order in the decision. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
PQME Dr. Shorr's report was not substantial evidence and did not fully develop work restrictions or disabilities, requiring further record development.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This deficiency justified the WCJ's order to develop the record and defer certain issues, which was the subject of the petition for reconsideration/removal.
From the decision · page 4The current record is incomplete as PQME Dr. Shorr does not fully develop the extent of applicant's work restrictions or disabilities before reaching the conclusion applicant is "permanently totally disabled." This deficiency precludes a meaningful assessment of applicant's ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation. (See LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
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.
PQME Dr. Shorr opined that applicant is 100% permanently disabled and cannot return to prior occupation, but did not fully develop the extent of work restrictions or disabilities before reaching this conclusion.
The Appeals Board found Dr. Shorr's reporting was not substantial evidence and did not fully develop work restrictions, precluding meaningful assessment of vocational feasibility.
From the decision · page 4PQME Dr. Shorr re-evaluated the applicant on September 30, 2024, stating under discussion it "remains my opinion that the claimant is 100% permanently disabled" and under work restrictions that he "will not be able to return to his prior occupation and is permanently totally disabled." PQME Dr. Shorr does not otherwise assess work restrictions or disability. (Joint Exhibit JJ, PQME Dr. Shorr, September 30, 2024, pages 11 and 12.)
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)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will only be granted if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
Applied to determine that defendant did not meet the standard for removal.
From the decision · page 4Removal 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); 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).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
PQME Dr. Shorr's report did not fully develop applicant's work restrictions or disabilities before concluding permanent total disability, precluding meaningful assessment of vocational feasibility.
From the decision · page 4The current record is incomplete as PQME Dr. Shorr does not fully develop the extent of applicant's work restrictions or disabilities before reaching the conclusion applicant is "permanently totally disabled." This deficiency precludes a meaningful assessment of applicant's ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation. (See LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
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.