What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's October 13, 2025 Findings and Order, and substituted a new order finding the QME Panel #7799762 was valid and not vacated.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's October 13, 2025 Findings and Order that invalidated the QME panel, and the WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's order.
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 WCAB found that applicant's objection letter met the requirements of Labor Code section 4061, entitling her to a QME panel under section 4062.2, and that the WCJ's invalidation of the QME panel was incorrect and caused significant prejudice to applicant.
From the decision · page 74061 and section 4062. (Joint Exh. 2 - PTP Objection Letter dated 3/12/25.) As discussed below,
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's March 12, 2025 objection letter complied with Labor Code section 4061 and requested a QME panel.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This compliance entitled applicant to a valid QME panel under section 4062.2, invalidating the WCJ's order vacating the panel.
From the decision · page 74061 and section 4062. (Joint Exh. 2 - PTP Objection Letter dated 3/12/25.) As discussed below,
The WCJ's order invalidating the QME panel denied applicant access to the QME process, causing significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This harm justified granting reconsideration and rescinding the WCJ's order.
From the decision · page 6Here, as discussed below, we conclude that the order invalidating the QME panel, thereby denying applicant's access to the QME process, resulted in significant prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. We will therefore grant the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
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 Progress Report on October 18, 2024, diagnosing injury and ordering applicant to remain off work with a treatment plan including medications, acupuncture referral, home TENS Unit, and follow-up assessment.
The report addressed the need for future medical care, which was the basis for applicant's objection and entitlement to a QME panel.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) on May 14, 2024, claiming a specific injury on March 15, 2024 to her back and lower extremities, due to a fall while employed as a warehouse worker by defendant. After examining applicant on October 18, 2024, primary treating physician (PTP) Saeed T. Nick, M.D. issued a Progress Report, which included diagnoses, an order for applicant to remain off work until December 3, 2024, and a plan for treatment. (Joint Exh. 1 PTP's 10/18/25 Report, at pp. 1-3.) On March 12, 2025, applicant filed an objection letter to the PTP's October 18, 2024 report, pursuant to Labor Code sections 4061 and 40621, and indicated that she would be seeking a Panel QME in Orthopedics. (Joint Exh. 2 - PTP Objection Letter, dated 3/12/25.) Nothing in the record indicates that defendant objected to this letter. On April 4, 2025, applicant obtained a QME panel in Orthopedic Surgery. (Joint Exh.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062
Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062 establish procedures for resolving disputes about medical treatment, disability, and need for continuing care.
Applicant's objection letter met the requirements of section 4061, entitling her to a QME panel under section 4062.2, invalidating the WCJ's contrary finding.
From the decision · page 6(2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584].) "When there are disputes about the appropriate medical treatment, temporary or permanent disability, vocational rehabilitation, the disability rating, or the need for continuing medical care, Labor Code section 4061 or 4062 applies. [Citations.] Sections 4061 and 4062 of the Labor Code establish the procedures for resolving such disagreements." (Tenet/Centinela Hospital Medical Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1048, citing Keulen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1096.) Section 4061, subdivision (b), provides: (b) If either the employee or employer objects to a medical determination made by the treating physician concerning the existence or extent of permanent impairment and limitations or the need for future medical care, and the employee is represented by an attorney, a medical evaluation to determine permanent disability shall be obtained as provided in Section 4062.2. (Lab. Code, § 4061(b).) Section 4062, subdivision (a), provides, in pertinent part:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's March 12, 2025 objection letter complied with Labor Code section 4061 requirements and was timely to request a QME panel.
From the decision · page 74061 and section 4062. (Joint Exh. 2 - PTP Objection Letter dated 3/12/25.) As discussed below,
The WCJ's order invalidating the QME panel caused significant prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant by denying access to the QME process.
From the decision · page 6Here, as discussed below, we conclude that the order invalidating the QME panel, thereby denying applicant's access to the QME process, resulted in significant prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. We will therefore grant the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
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.