What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied by the Appeals Board panel on April 11, 2022.
Applicant seeks removal or reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on January 21, 2022, which denied her request for a replacement QME panel.
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 WCJ found the objection to the QME report was defective because the replacement panel request was made after receipt of the report, not before. The Appeals Board panel denied reconsideration, deferring to the WCJ's discretion to prevent 'doctor shopping'.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal or in the alternative reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 21, 2022. By the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant's objection to the report of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) was defective. The WCJ issued an order denying applicant's request for a replacement panel.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant objected to the QME report as untimely only after receiving the report, not before.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timing was critical to the WCJ's and Appeals Board's denial of the replacement panel request to prevent 'doctor shopping'.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Issued a medical-legal evaluation report that was objected to as untimely by the applicant.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal or in the alternative reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 21, 2022. By the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant's objection to the report of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) was defective. The WCJ issued an order denying applicant's request for a replacement panel.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code, 4062.5
Labor Code section 4062.5 allows new evaluation if QME fails to meet deadlines.
Legal basis for replacement QME panel request.
From the decision · page 4If a qualified medical evaluator selected from a panel fails to complete the formal medical evaluation within the timeframes established by the administrative director pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 139.2, a new evaluation may be obtained upon the request of either party, as provided in Sections 4062.1 or 4062.2.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 31.5(a)(12)
Replacement QME panel may be requested if the evaluator fails to meet deadlines and objection is made prior to report service.
Applied to deny replacement panel because objection was not timely made before report service.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal or in the alternative reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 21, 2022. By the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant's objection to the report of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) was defective. The WCJ issued an order denying applicant's request for a replacement panel.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 38(a)-(b)
QME must issue report within 30 days of evaluation.
Timeliness of QME report evaluated under this standard.
From the decision · page 4AD Rule 38 provides the QME with 30 days to issue an initial comprehensive medical-
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant objected to the timeliness of the QME report before receiving it but requested replacement panel after receipt.
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.