What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; March 8, 2021 Order rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and decision
Petition for removal of the Order taking the matter off calendar issued by the WCJ on March 8, 2021
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 Appeals Board granted removal because the WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar was based on an incomplete record, lacking a QME report addressing all alleged body parts, thus prejudicing the defendant and requiring further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal in response to the Order taking the matter off calendar issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 8, 2021, wherein the WCJ stated that additional reporting is necessary because the report from the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) did not address injury to all of the body parts alleged.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The QME report did not address injury to all of the body parts alleged by the applicant.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This incomplete medical report prevented the WCJ from making a fully informed decision, justifying removal and further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal in response to the Order taking the matter off calendar issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 8, 2021, wherein the WCJ stated that additional reporting is necessary because the report from the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) did not address injury to all of the body parts alleged.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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]
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted.
The Board applied this standard to determine that removal was warranted due to the incomplete QME report and the need for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Additionally, 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
Lab. Code, 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc)
The WCJ must issue a decision complying with Labor Code section 5313, making findings on all facts involved in the controversy and clearly designating the evidence forming the basis of the decision.
The Board emphasized the WCJ's duty to develop a complete record and make findings based on substantial evidence, which was not met due to the incomplete QME report.
From the decision · page 2The statutory and regulatory duties of a WCJ include the issuance of a decision that complies with Labor Code section 5313.1 An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision and the WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc)2 (Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).)
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.