ADJ19297551 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Denied defendants' Joint Petition for Removal or Reconsideration, making no changes to the prior opinion.

Defendants filed a Joint Petition for Removal or Reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration issued on August 11, 2025, which granted applicant's petition for reconsideration and ordered that Dr. Tarin's report be submitted to the QME Dr. Bressler. The current decision denies the defendants' petition and makes no changes to the prior opinion.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 11, 2025.

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board found no merit to defendants' petition for removal or reconsideration, concluding that there was no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to applicant and that reconsideration was an adequate remedy. The Board upheld its prior decision allowing Dr. Tarin's report to be submitted to the QME Dr. Bressler.

From the decision · page 1Defendants filed a Joint Petition for Removal or Reconsideration (Petition) of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued on August 11, 2025 (Prior Opinion). In the Prior Opinion, the Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration; rescinded the May 9, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ); and substituted new Findings and Order wherein the Appeals Board found, in relevant part, that the April 19, 2024 report of David Tarin, M.D., may be submitted to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Daniel Bressler, M.D., pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2) 1, and ordered that Dr. Tarin's report shall be sent to the QME.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Dr. Tarin's April 19, 2024 report was written prior to the QME's report and was not obtained solely to rebut the QME's opinion.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact meant the report was not barred by the Batten decision, allowing it to be submitted to the QME.

From the decision · page 5Here, the Batten prohibition is inapplicable. Dr. Tarin's April 19, 2024 report was written prior to the QME's report, and was obtained outside of the worker's compensation process. The record demonstrates that Dr. Tarin was a consulting physician; he was not an expert who was retained solely for the purpose of rebutting the QME's opinion. In fact, QME Dr. Bressler specifically requested in his report that he be provided with an opportunity to review Dr. Tarin's report, indicating that the report "would be helpful in order to substantiate or review the opinions expressed above." (Joint Exh. 102, Dr. Bressler's 9/3/24 Report, at p. 38.) Thus, Dr. Tarin's report was not obtained in a manner violative of Batten, and Batten provides no legal basis for keeping Dr. Tarin's report from the QME.

Dr. Bressler, the QME, specifically requested to review Dr. Tarin's report to substantiate or review his opinions.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the relevance and admissibility of Dr. Tarin's report in the QME evaluation process.

From the decision · page 5Here, the Batten prohibition is inapplicable. Dr. Tarin's April 19, 2024 report was written prior to the QME's report, and was obtained outside of the worker's compensation process. The record demonstrates that Dr. Tarin was a consulting physician; he was not an expert who was retained solely for the purpose of rebutting the QME's opinion. In fact, QME Dr. Bressler specifically requested in his report that he be provided with an opportunity to review Dr. Tarin's report, indicating that the report "would be helpful in order to substantiate or review the opinions expressed above." (Joint Exh. 102, Dr. Bressler's 9/3/24 Report, at p. 38.) Thus, Dr. Tarin's report was not obtained in a manner violative of Batten, and Batten provides no legal basis for keeping Dr. Tarin's report from the QME.

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.

otherRelied upon

Authored an April 19, 2024 report relevant to the QME's determination of causation of the applicant's illness and death, which was ordered to be submitted to the QME.

The report was written prior to the QME's report and was not obtained solely to rebut the QME's opinion, thus not barred by Batten.

From the decision · page 1Defendants filed a Joint Petition for Removal or Reconsideration (Petition) of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued on August 11, 2025 (Prior Opinion). In the Prior Opinion, the Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration; rescinded the May 9, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ); and substituted new Findings and Order wherein the Appeals Board found, in relevant part, that the April 19, 2024 report of David Tarin, M.D., may be submitted to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Daniel Bressler, M.D., pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2) 1, and ordered that Dr. Tarin's report shall be sent to the QME.

QMERelied upon

Requested to review Dr. Tarin's report to substantiate or review his opinions.

Dr. Bressler specifically requested Dr. Tarin's report, indicating its helpfulness in reviewing his opinions.

From the decision · page 1Defendants filed a Joint Petition for Removal or Reconsideration (Petition) of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued on August 11, 2025 (Prior Opinion). In the Prior Opinion, the Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration; rescinded the May 9, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ); and substituted new Findings and Order wherein the Appeals Board found, in relevant part, that the April 19, 2024 report of David Tarin, M.D., may be submitted to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Daniel Bressler, M.D., pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2) 1, and ordered that Dr. Tarin's report shall be sent to the QME.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code

Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2)

Permitting submission of Dr. Tarin's report to the QME Dr. Bressler.

From the decision · page 1Defendants filed a Joint Petition for Removal or Reconsideration (Petition) of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued on August 11, 2025 (Prior Opinion). In the Prior Opinion, the Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration; rescinded the May 9, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ); and substituted new Findings and Order wherein the Appeals Board found, in relevant part, that the April 19, 2024 report of David Tarin, M.D., may be submitted to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Daniel Bressler, M.D., pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2) 1, and ordered that Dr. Tarin's report shall be sent to the QME.

Labor Code

Labor Code section 5909

Timeliness requirement for acting on petitions for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 2Former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

California Code of Regulations

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Standard for granting removal petitions requiring showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

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 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).)

ADJ19297551 · October 28, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page