What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration of the November 27, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order denying removal or reconsideration was filed by applicant and denied by the WCAB panel on February 27, 2025.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 29, 2023, June 22, 2023, June 22, 2023.
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 WCAB panel found that the petition challenged an interlocutory order regarding development of the record, which is not a final order subject to reconsideration, and that the petitioner did not establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order, thus denial of reconsideration was appropriate.
From the decision · page 6Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on January 2, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 2, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case 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 January 2, 2025.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's order for additional discovery and development of the record
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ found that further medical and vocational expert reporting was necessary to comply with legal standards on apportionment and to provide substantial evidence for the award.
From the decision · page 8Here, the WCJ has considered the arguments advanced by the parties in briefing responsive to the issues of apportionment and the sufficiency of the record. Following his review of the record, the WCJ has concluded that further development of the record is necessary, including additional reporting from both the QME and the parties' respective vocational experts. The WCJ writes:
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.
Provided medical apportionment determination as QME.
The WCJ ordered additional reporting from the QME Dr. Brown to address legal apportionment as clarified by the Board.
From the decision · page 8Here, the WCJ has considered the arguments advanced by the parties in briefing responsive to the issues of apportionment and the sufficiency of the record. Following his review of the record, the WCJ has concluded that further development of the record is necessary, including additional reporting from both the QME and the parties' respective vocational experts. The WCJ writes:
Provided vocational expert opinion on feasibility of vocational retraining and total disability.
The WCJ ordered additional reporting from the vocational experts consistent with the Board's clarification that there is no legal basis for vocational apportionment.
From the decision · page 8Here, the WCJ has considered the arguments advanced by the parties in briefing responsive to the issues of apportionment and the sufficiency of the record. Following his review of the record, the WCJ has concluded that further development of the record is necessary, including additional reporting from both the QME and the parties' respective vocational experts. The WCJ writes:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 5Former 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:
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
From the decision · page 7Removal 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).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The WCJ's order for additional discovery and development of the record
From the decision · page 8Here, the WCJ has considered the arguments advanced by the parties in briefing responsive to the issues of apportionment and the sufficiency of the record. Following his review of the record, the WCJ has concluded that further development of the record is necessary, including additional reporting from both the QME and the parties' respective vocational experts. The WCJ writes:
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.