REVIEWCO, INC.; AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, INC., ANTOINETTE YOUNG, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAANTOINETTE YOUNG, Applicant,vs.REVIEWCO, INC.; AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, INC., PETITION, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2233720 (ANA 0335456)OPINION AND ORDERS VACATING OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING FOR REMOVAL, AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL On May 15, 2009. the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our decision after reconsideration. In the Findings and Order of March 3, 2009, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained industrial injury to her left shoulder during the period January 26, 1998 through June 12, 1999, that before the deposition of Dr. Brourman, the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME), scheduled for September 14, 2007, defense counsel Donald Gabriel and/or his office staff advised applicant’s attorney Dennis Camene and/or his office staff that Gabriel had a calendar conflict and the deposition should not proceed, and that Camene’s going d forward with Dr. Brourman’s deposition on that date, despite having been informed of Gabriel’s objection, was an ex-parte communication with the AME in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(f). Pursuant to these findings, the WCJ ordered that Dr. Brourman’s reports dated June 12, 2004, April 28, 2005, December 14, 2005 and June 4, 2007, as well as Dr. Brourman’s depositions of August 21, 2006, August 1, 2007 and September 14, 2007, must be excluded from evidence. Applicant sought reconsideration and removal in response to the WCJ’s ruling.1 Applicant 1Applicant’s attorney filed identical but separate petitions for reconsideration and removal, with numerous attachments in violation of WCAB Rule 10842. (8 Cal. Code Regs. §10842.) Applicant’s attorney should follow the Board’s rules
