The WCJ's March 26, 2026 Findings of Fact, Orders that applicant is entitled to an internal and neurologist QME is not a final order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, the petition was dismissed.
From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ's March 26, 2026 Findings of Fact, Orders that applicant is entitled to an
internal and neurologist QME is not a final order. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed to
the extent it seeks reconsideration.
The petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because removal requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, the petition for removal was denied.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits
of the petitioner's arguments, 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.
Reconsideration was an adequate remedy for the petitioner if a final adverse decision ultimately issues.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because reconsideration is an adequate remedy, removal was denied.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits
of the petitioner's arguments, 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.