What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on November 6, 2025, by the WCJ, reviewed and denied by the Appeals Board.
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's decision included findings on threshold issues (injury and employment), making it a final order subject to reconsideration. The applicant's challenge to the QME's timely report and continued appointment was interlocutory and subject to removal standards, but no significant prejudice or irreparable harm was shown.
From the decision · page 4Here, the WCJ's decision includes findings that applicant sustained an admitted injury and regarding employment, which are threshold issues. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's decision included findings on admitted injury and employment, which are threshold issues making the order final.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the order subject to reconsideration rather than removal, affecting the standard applied to the petition.
From the decision · page 4Here, the WCJ's decision includes findings that applicant sustained an admitted injury and regarding employment, which are threshold issues. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal.
Applicant challenged the timeliness of Dr. Broderick's QME report and his continued appointment, but these were interlocutory orders.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Interlocutory orders are subject to removal, not reconsideration, and require a showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not made.
From the decision · page 4Although the decision contains findings that are final, the applicant appears to challenge the WCJ's finding that Dr. Broderick, the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), issued a timely initial report and the WCJ's Order that Dr. Broderick shall continue to act as the panel QME in the case. These are interlocutory finding/orders subject to the removal standard rather than reconsideration pursuant to the discussion above. (See Gaona, supra.)
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.
Dr. Broderick issued a timely initial report and was ordered to continue as the panel QME.
The applicant challenged the timeliness of Dr. Broderick's report and his continued appointment as QME, but the WCJ found the report timely and ordered Dr. Broderick to continue.
From the decision · page 4Although the decision contains findings that are final, the applicant appears to challenge the WCJ's finding that Dr. Broderick, the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), issued a timely initial report and the WCJ's Order that Dr. Broderick shall continue to act as the panel QME in the case. These are interlocutory finding/orders subject to the removal standard rather than reconsideration pursuant to the discussion above. (See Gaona, supra.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code § 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Board acted within 60 days of transmission, so the petition was timely considered.
From the decision · page 1Preliminarily, former Labor section 59091 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:
A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
The WCJ's findings on injury and employment were threshold issues making the order final; the QME-related orders were interlocutory.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. WCAB; Kleemann v. WCAB
Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applicant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm, so removal was denied.
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).)
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.