What the panel ordered
March 11, 2025 Findings and Order by WCJ rescinded; new finding that a QME strike may be exercised by timely notifying opposing counsel; matter returned to trial level.
Petition for removal from Findings and Order issued March 11, 2025, granted to decide issue of proper method of QME strike service.
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 Board found that Labor Code section 4062.2 requires only timely notification of opposing counsel to exercise a QME strike, not formal service by mail or electronic service rules.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that pursuant to AD Rule 10205.6(b), a strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must be made via first class mail, absent agreement of the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10205.6(b).) The WCJ found that WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2), does not apply to permit electronic service of a QME strike. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(2).)