CompFox AI Summary
The defendant petitioned for removal from a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on June 11, 2025, which found medical opinions unsubstantial and ordered a discovery plan. The defendant argued that the discovery plan violated Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) and that existing medical reporting was substantial evidence. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the original F&O, and substituted a new F&O, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The new F&O stated that opinions from Renee Kohanim, D.C., and Dabney Blankenship, Ph.D., were not substantial medical evidence, but Dr. David Edelman's studies were.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The defendant petitioned for removal from a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on June 11, 2025, which found medical opinions unsubstantial and ordered a discovery plan. The defendant argued that the discovery plan violated Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) and that existing medical reporting was substantial evidence. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the original F&O, and substituted a new F&O, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The new F&O stated that opinions from Renee Kohanim, D.C., and Dabney Blankenship, Ph.D., were not substantial medical evidence, but Dr. David Edelman's studies were.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.