What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the order was non-final and removal was not warranted.p. 7
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant seeking to depose the QME on availability was dismissed as the underlying order was non-final and subject only to removal, which was denied.
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 bifurcated the issue of QME availability and denied applicant's request to depose the QME. The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant to warrant replacement of the QME and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was non-final and removal was not warranted.
From the decision · page 3It appears that the actual issue in these matters is whether defendant may replace Dr. Krishnareddy due to his alleged unavailability. Rather than try that issue on the merits, the WCJ bifurcated the sub-issue of whether applicant may take the QME’s deposition on the issue of his availability.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the QME's alleged unavailability.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant removal of the QME was not warranted, leading to dismissal of the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 7It appears that applicant would like to conduct discovery on the Vazquez factors prior to proceeding to trial on the issue. Defendant wishes to proceed to trial without such discovery. It is defendant’s burden to prove that the QME should be replaced. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) We cannot find on this record that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm has occurred to applicant, and thus removal is not warranted. Accordingly, as applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration is in response to a non-final order, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration.
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.
Alleged unavailability led to defendant's request for replacement QME; applicant sought to depose QME on availability issue.
From the decision · page 3It appears that the actual issue in these matters is whether defendant may replace Dr. Krishnareddy due to his alleged unavailability. Rather than try that issue on the merits, the WCJ bifurcated the sub-issue of whether applicant may take the QME’s deposition on the issue of his availability.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514, 516-517 (Appeals Board en banc)
In a represented case, a QME may be replaced for good cause if the QME does not timely establish availability to set an appointment pursuant to AD Rule 31.3.
The WCJ and Appeals Board considered factors such as length of delay, prejudice to parties, efforts to remedy availability, and case-specific reasons to decide on QME replacement.
From the decision · page 6Here, the order issued by the WCJ rejected applicant’s request to depose the QME. This is a non-final order, which is subject only to removal. Removal 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).) Here, the actual issue to be adjudicated is whether defendant may replace the current QME. Pursuant to our en banc holding in Vasquez: In a represented case, where a QME does not timely establish availability to set an appointment pursuant to AD Rule 31.3, a WCJ or the Appeals Board has discretion
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from QME unavailability to warrant replacement.
From the decision · page 7It appears that applicant would like to conduct discovery on the Vazquez factors prior to proceeding to trial on the issue. Defendant wishes to proceed to trial without such discovery. It is defendant’s burden to prove that the QME should be replaced. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) We cannot find on this record that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm has occurred to applicant, and thus removal is not warranted. Accordingly, as applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration is in response to a non-final order, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration.
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.