ADJ17497658 · September 23, 2026

The petition was denied because the WCJ's decision was a final order subject to reconsideration, and the defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The petition was timely acted upon within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 2, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that from March 14, 2022 to March 14, 2023, while employed by defendant as an elementary school teacher, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her psyche. The WCJ further found that since applicant has shown good cause to replace Brian Jacks, M.D., as the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), he would order the Medical Unit to issue a replacement QME panel in psychiatry. Defendant, in essence, requests that Findings of Fact Number 4 and the Order granting applicant’s petition to replace the panel QME be rescinded. Alternatively, defendant requests the matter be returned to the trial level with instructions to determine whether the April 13, 2026 letter by Dr.

The WCJ found good cause to replace Brian Jacks, M.D., as the panel QME.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This finding was challenged by defendant but upheld by the WCAB panel, leading to denial of the petition for removal.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 2, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that from March 14, 2022 to March 14, 2023, while employed by defendant as an elementary school teacher, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her psyche. The WCJ further found that since applicant has shown good cause to replace Brian Jacks, M.D., as the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), he would order the Medical Unit to issue a replacement QME panel in psychiatry. Defendant, in essence, requests that Findings of Fact Number 4 and the Order granting applicant’s petition to replace the panel QME be rescinded. Alternatively, defendant requests the matter be returned to the trial level with instructions to determine whether the April 13, 2026 letter by Dr.

Applicant showed good cause to replace Brian Jacks, M.D., as the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME).

The WCJ found good cause to replace Dr. Jacks as QME, which was challenged by defendant but upheld by the WCAB panel.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 2, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that from March 14, 2022 to March 14, 2023, while employed by defendant as an elementary school teacher, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her psyche. The WCJ further found that since applicant has shown good cause to replace Brian Jacks, M.D., as the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), he would order the Medical Unit to issue a replacement QME panel in psychiatry. Defendant, in essence, requests that Findings of Fact Number 4 and the Order granting applicant’s petition to replace the panel QME be rescinded. Alternatively, defendant requests the matter be returned to the trial level with instructions to determine whether the April 13, 2026 letter by Dr.

Labor Code

Labor Code section 5909

Petitions for reconsideration filed on or after July 14, 2026 must be acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

From the decision · page 2We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of the petitioner’s arguments in the Report, we will treat the Petition as one for reconsideration and deny it as one seeking reconsideration. DISCUSSION I. Petitions for reconsideration filed on or after July 14, 2026 are subject to Labor Code section 5909 1, which states that: 0F

Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171

Definition of a final order for reconsideration purposes

A final order determines substantive rights or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final.

From the decision · page 3act on a petition. Section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report shall be notice of transmission. Here, according to the proof of service for the Report, the Report was served on July 31, 2026, and the cases were transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 31, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the cases to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on July 31, 2026. II. A 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.

WCJ's analysis of the merits of defendant's arguments in the Report

From the decision · page 4(See Gaona, supra.) 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 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).) Here, based upon our review and the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of defendant’s arguments in the Report, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant. Accordingly, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.