Cintas Corporation, Inc.; Xl Special [Y Insurance Administered By Cambridge/Xchanging Valentino Villalpando WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAVALENTINO VILLALPANDO, Applicant,vs.CINTAS CORPORATION, INC.; XL SPECIAL [y INSURANCE Administered By CAMBRIDGE/XCHANGING, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ6698865ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION AND REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers* compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in said report which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. In addition, as set forth below, the petition should also be treated as one for removal, which we will also deny by adopting and incorporating the WCJ’s report, and for the following reasons. The only “final** determination made by the WCJ on an issue that is raised by defendant’s petition is his finding that applicant is in need of further medical treatment (KMT). Defendant’s petition is not a model of good draftsmanship; however, it appears that defendant is not challenging that finding per se. Instead, defendant seems to be asserting that any FMT issues should be subject to utilization review’ and/or review within its medical provider network (MPN). Yet, a general FMT finding does not preclude a defendant from challenging the reasonableness or necessity of any particular treatment. Therefore, to the extent defendant’s petition seeks reconsideration of the general FMT award, the petitioner is denied. The balance of defendant’s petition challenges the WCJ’s orders relating to: (1) striking the report of Dr. Soong, the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), and directing the Medical Unit , to issue a new QME panel; and (2) an evaluation by and possible deposition of Dr. Bogarty. Neither of these is a “final” order and defendant has not shown that substantial prejud
