What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued April 16, 2024 is denied.
Applicant sought removal of the WCJ's Findings and Order invalidating QME panel 7629463 for failure to comply with AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); the Board treated the petition as one for reconsideration and denied it.
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.
Applicant's proof of service did not show service of all required documents under AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); thus, the QME panel was invalid.
From the decision · page 5Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the finding that applicant failed to comply with AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's proof of service did not show service of the online panel request and supporting documentation as required by AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C).
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to serve all required documents rendered the QME panel invalid.
From the decision · page 4Here, the proof of service shows that applicant served the QME panel list but does not show that she also served the other documents required by AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); namely, a paper copy of the online panel request and any supporting documentation. Additionally, the pleadings record lacks an amended proof of service which could establish applicant's contention that she did in fact serve a copy of the panel request and the supporting documentation upon defendant.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30(b)(1)(C)
Proof of service must identify all documents served, including the online request and supporting documentation, not just the panel list.
Applicant's proof of service did not show service of all required documents, so the QME panel was invalid.
From the decision · page 4AD Rule 30 provides that when a represented party requests a QME panel: (b)... requests for an initial QME panel in a represented case, for all cases with a date of injury on or after January 1, 2005, shall be submitted electronically utilizing the Division of Workers' Compensation internet site.... (1) The party requesting a QME panel online shall: *** (C) Print and serve a paper copy of the online request, the panel list, and a copy of any supporting documentation that was submitted online, upon the opposing party with a proof of service, within 1 (one) working day after generating the QME panel list. Within 10 (ten) days of service of the panel, each party may strike one name from the panel. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30(b)(1)(C).)
Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803 (en banc)
The trier of fact has wide discretion to determine the appropriate remedy for violations of QME process rules.
Order invalidating the QME panel was within the WCJ's authority.
From the decision · page 5In Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803 (Appeals Bd. en banc), the Appeals Board opined that where the Labor Code does not provide a specific remedy for certain violations of the rules applicable to the QME process, the trier of fact has wide discretion to determine the appropriate remedy. (See Suon, supra, at p. 1815.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Proof of service showed only the QME panel list was served, not the required additional documents.
From the decision · page 4Here, the proof of service shows that applicant served the QME panel list but does not show that she also served the other documents required by AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C); namely, a paper copy of the online panel request and any supporting documentation. Additionally, the pleadings record lacks an amended proof of service which could establish applicant's contention that she did in fact serve a copy of the panel request and the supporting documentation upon defendant.
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.