ADJ15298613 · April 21, 2026

The WCJ properly applied the Vazquez factors and found good cause for replacement due to QME unavailability, and the Appeals Board found no abuse of discretion in denying removal.

From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Finding(s), Order(s), and Opinion on Decision" issued on February 9, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant established good cause for a replacement panel due to the unavailability of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) to set an initial evaluation appointment.

The initial QME was unavailable to set an initial evaluation appointment causing delay.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This justified the WCJ's finding of good cause for replacement under Vazquez factors.

From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Finding(s), Order(s), and Opinion on Decision" issued on February 9, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant established good cause for a replacement panel due to the unavailability of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) to set an initial evaluation appointment.

Applicant acted swiftly to obtain a replacement QME panel, minimizing delay prejudice.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the WCJ's discretion to grant replacement and the Appeals Board's denial of removal.

From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ has adequately analyzed the Vazquez factors and determined that a replacement panel is warranted. In particular, the length of delay caused by the initial QME's unavailability appears similar to the delay caused by proceeding with a replacement QME, particularly since applicant acted swiftly in obtaining a replacement panel. There is no significant prejudice in restarting the QME process as it does not appear that a QME has reported yet. While defendant did make efforts to remedy the initial QME's unavailability, the WCJ was well within their discretion to weigh that effort against applicant's efforts to obtain a QME who could set a sooner appointment. On the record before us, no abuse of discretion has occurred.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be adequate, thus denying removal.

From the decision · page 1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner

Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514

In a represented case, a WCJ or Appeals Board may order a replacement QME for good cause considering factors such as delay, prejudice, efforts to remedy, and substantial justice.

The WCJ analyzed the Vazquez factors and found good cause for replacement; the Appeals Board affirmed this discretion was properly exercised.

From the decision · page 2Pursuant to the en banc holding in Vasquez: In a represented case, where a QME does not timely establish availability to set an appointment pursuant to AD Rule 31.3, a WCJ or the Appeals Board has discretion to order a replacement QME for good cause. The WCJ or the Appeals Board may consider the following: