CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal and disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The defendant argued the WCJ erred in closing discovery and setting the case for trial, and that the same judge should not conduct both the MSC and trial. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the defendant failed to object to the treating physician's recommendation for the applicant to be off work post-surgery, and therefore could not compel a re-evaluation to dispute the industrial nature of the surgery. The Appeals Board also found no grounds for disqualification, citing lack of evidentiary substantiation and non-compliance with procedural rules.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal and disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The defendant argued the WCJ erred in closing discovery and setting the case for trial, and that the same judge should not conduct both the MSC and trial. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the defendant failed to object to the treating physician's recommendation for the applicant to be off work post-surgery, and therefore could not compel a re-evaluation to dispute the industrial nature of the surgery. The Appeals Board also found no grounds for disqualification, citing lack of evidentiary substantiation and non-compliance with procedural rules.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.