Petition for Removal Denied, Replacement Panel Granted

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MENETTE YOUNG, Applicant vs. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, permissibly self-insured, administered by BETA HEALTHCARE GROUP, Defendants

Adjudication Number: ADJ15298613 Van Nuys District Office

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL

Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Finding(s), Order(s), and Opinion on Decision" issued on February 9, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant established good cause for a replacement panel due to the unavailability of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) to set an initial evaluation appointment. Defendant contends that the WCJ abused their discretion in finding a replacement panel was warranted. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's Report, we will deny removal. 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 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).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial 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 petitioner. Pursuant to the en banc holding in Vasquez: In a represented case, where a QME does not timely establish availability to set an appointment pursuant to AD Rule 31.3, a WCJ or the Appeals Board has discretion to order a replacement QME for good cause. The WCJ or the Appeals Board may consider the following:

1. The length of delay caused by the QME's unavailability.

2. The amount of prejudice caused by the delay in availability versus the
   amount of prejudice caused by restarting the QME process.

3. What efforts, if any, have been made to remedy the QME's availability.

4. Case specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current

QME, including whether a party may have waived its objection.

1. The Appeals Board's constitutional mandate to "accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) (Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514, 516-517 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, the WCJ has adequately analyzed the Vazquez factors and determined that a replacement panel is warranted. In particular, the length of delay caused by the initial QME's unavailability appears similar to the delay caused by proceeding with a replacement QME, particularly since applicant acted swiftly in obtaining a replacement panel. There is no significant prejudice in restarting the QME process as it does not appear that a QME has reported yet. While defendant did make efforts to remedy the initial QME's unavailability, the WCJ was well within their discretion to weigh that effort against applicant's efforts to obtain a QME who could set a sooner appointment. On the record before us, no abuse of discretion has occurred. Accordingly, we deny removal.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Removal from the "Finding(s), Order(s),

and Opinion on Decision" issued on February 9, 2026, by the WCJ is DENIED.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

/s/ KATHERINE WILLIAMS DODD, COMMISSIONER

I CONCUR,

/s/ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR

/s/ ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 21, 2026 SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD. MENETTE YOUNG LARSON, LARSON & DAUER, ALC SYNAPSE LIEN UNIT CDLP LAW EDL/mt

I certify that I affixed the official seal of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to this original decision on this date. KL