STAPLES, INC.; ESIS, GEYRI AGUILAR, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGEYRI AGUILAR, Applicant,vs.STAPLES, INC.; ESIS, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3702111 (VNO 0549040)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FORREMOVAL Defendant has filed a timely, verified petition for removal, requesting that the appeals board reverse the Order dated October 6, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) stated: “Defendant’s petition for 2 d [qualified medical evaluator] panel denied. Evaluation set on 03/03/2009. Report sent out 03/03/2009 to ESIS only. ESIS received report 03/30/2009. Defense attorney received report on 06/09/2009. Denial based on report issuing within 30 days. Applicant attorney served PQME report on defense attorney 06/06/2009. Applicant’s attorney received PQME report 06/05/2009.” Defendant contends that the QME report was served untimely because it was served on defendant and not its attorney, in violation of WCAB Rule 10510 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510) and that defendant is entitled to a second QME panel because the first report was not served timely. Applicant has filed an answer. Administrative Director Rule 36(a) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 36(a)) provides in relevantpart: “Whenever an injured worker is represented by an attorney, the evaluator shall serve each comprehensive medical-legal evaluation report … on the injured worker, his or her attorney and , on the claims administrator, or if none, the employer …. ” AD Rule 38(a) requires that the report be served within thirty days after the QME has seen the employee. In this case, Farkhondeh Mokri-Arganeh, D.C., the panel QME, served his report on the claims administrator within thirty days, but he did not serve the claims administrator’s attorney. Upon receipt of the report, defense counsel filed a motion to exclude the report on the ground that it had not been served on him. Defense counsel does not disclos
