What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; Qualified Medical Examination Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for removal of Qualified Medical Examination Order issued by WCJ on July 10, 2020
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 issued the QME Order without an evidentiary record, which is required for substantial evidence review; the Appeals Board cannot address the merits without a complete record and thus grants removal and remands for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 2Both parties submitted briefs per the Minute Order and attached exhibits to their briefs. The WCJ then issued the disputed Order as outlined above. To date, no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding the QME dispute.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ issued the QME Order without creation of an evidentiary record.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without an evidentiary record, the Appeals Board cannot determine if the Order is supported by substantial evidence, requiring removal and remand.
From the decision · page 3Although the parties attached documents to their trial briefs, the Order in this matter was issued without creation of an evidentiary record. We are unable to address whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the absence of a record.
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.
Appointed as QME by WCJ despite dispute over panel selection; appointment objected to by applicant.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of the Qualified Medical Examination Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 10, 2020.1 By the Order, the WCJ ordered that applicant shall attend an examination with Daniel D'Amico, M.D. as the qualified medical evaluator (QME).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc)
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record and supported by substantial evidence.
The WCJ's Order was issued without an evidentiary record, so the Appeals Board cannot review the merits without a complete record.
From the decision · page 2Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d);2 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].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10566, now § 10787 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) "It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record. At a
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidentiary record was created regarding the QME dispute; the Order was issued without evidence.
From the decision · page 3Although the parties attached documents to their trial briefs, the Order in this matter was issued without creation of an evidentiary record. We are unable to address whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the absence of a record.
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.