What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant was denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on June 21, 2024.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the WCJ's April 2, 2024 Findings and Orders regarding the invalidation of a QME panel in psychiatry and denial of a general surgery panel request. The WCAB reviewed the petition and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, and decided to deny the petition and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 14, 2022, November 14, 2022.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition was denied because the applicant failed to timely comply with the discovery order to request a QME panel in psychiatry, rendering the panel invalid.
From the decision · page 6II. Applicant also claims that the April 20, 2023 discovery order as to a new QME panel in psychiatry was vague. The order instructs applicant's attorney to provide the discovery order to the Administrative Director' Medical Unit within thirty days of its finality. (4/20/23 FA&O, p. 9.) Applicant did not request a QME panel in psychiatry within the time limit specified in the order. When applicant thereafter requested the panel, defendant objected to the request and filed a DOR requesting an Expedited Hearing to obtain a finding that the panel request was invalid. The disputed issue of the validity of the QME panel was heard at the trial on March 14, 2024. On April 2, 2024, the WCJ ordered the QME panel #3397632 invalidated; denied defendant's petition for a stay of an examination with Dr. Michael Hoffman; and allowed applicant and defendant thirty days from the date of these Orders to discuss the potential use of an AME in the field of psychiatry, or, in the absence of agreement, permit either party to request the Administrative Director's Medical Unit issue a QME panel in the field of psychiatry. (4/2/24 F&O, pp.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant did not timely comply with the April 20, 2023 discovery order to request a QME panel in psychiatry.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure rendered the QME panel #3397632 invalid and led to denial of the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6II. Applicant also claims that the April 20, 2023 discovery order as to a new QME panel in psychiatry was vague. The order instructs applicant's attorney to provide the discovery order to the Administrative Director' Medical Unit within thirty days of its finality. (4/20/23 FA&O, p. 9.) Applicant did not request a QME panel in psychiatry within the time limit specified in the order. When applicant thereafter requested the panel, defendant objected to the request and filed a DOR requesting an Expedited Hearing to obtain a finding that the panel request was invalid. The disputed issue of the validity of the QME panel was heard at the trial on March 14, 2024. On April 2, 2024, the WCJ ordered the QME panel #3397632 invalidated; denied defendant's petition for a stay of an examination with Dr. Michael Hoffman; and allowed applicant and defendant thirty days from the date of these Orders to discuss the potential use of an AME in the field of psychiatry, or, in the absence of agreement, permit either party to request the Administrative Director's Medical Unit issue a QME panel in the field of psychiatry. (4/2/24 F&O, pp.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10600, 10605(a)(1), 10940(a), 10615(b)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of service of a final decision; failure to timely file deprives the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider the petition.
The petition was filed more than 25 days after the final discovery order, so it was untimely and the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 5There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) 1 This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's failure to timely comply with the discovery order to request a QME panel in psychiatry
From the decision · page 6II. Applicant also claims that the April 20, 2023 discovery order as to a new QME panel in psychiatry was vague. The order instructs applicant's attorney to provide the discovery order to the Administrative Director' Medical Unit within thirty days of its finality. (4/20/23 FA&O, p. 9.) Applicant did not request a QME panel in psychiatry within the time limit specified in the order. When applicant thereafter requested the panel, defendant objected to the request and filed a DOR requesting an Expedited Hearing to obtain a finding that the panel request was invalid. The disputed issue of the validity of the QME panel was heard at the trial on March 14, 2024. On April 2, 2024, the WCJ ordered the QME panel #3397632 invalidated; denied defendant's petition for a stay of an examination with Dr. Michael Hoffman; and allowed applicant and defendant thirty days from the date of these Orders to discuss the potential use of an AME in the field of psychiatry, or, in the absence of agreement, permit either party to request the Administrative Director's Medical Unit issue a QME panel in the field of psychiatry. (4/2/24 F&O, pp.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.