ADJ20798821 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied by the WCAB panel on February 6, 2026.

Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order Regarding Validity of QME Panel Number 7821226 filed by applicant and denied by the WCJ on November 14, 2025, was reviewed by the WCAB panel on February 6, 2026.

Read the official decision →

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.

QME/AME processDefendant prevailedhead · facial fracture · nasal fracture · collar bone · ribs · eyes · ears · neck · chest · shoulder · abdomen · back · right arm · right elbow · right wrist · legs · memory loss · psyche · wrists · knees · heels · feet · dry skin · dry eyes · gastrointestinal pain · hearing loss · lungs

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order Regarding Validity of QME Panel Number 7821226 (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 14, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed by defendant, on February 28, 2025, as a compounding lead, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head, facial fracture, nasal fracture, collar bone, ribs, and claims injury to the eyes, ears, neck, chest, shoulder, abdomen, back, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, legs, memory loss, and psyche (ADJ20798822); that applicant, while employed by defendant, during the period August 30, 2023 to August 30, 2024, as a compounding lead, claims injury AOE/COE to the neck, back, shoulder, wrists, legs, knees, heels, feet, dry skin, dry eyes, gastrointestinal pain, hearing loss, lungs, and psyche (ADJ20798821); and that Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) Panel 7821226 is valid and overruled applicant's objection to that panel.

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.

QMERelied upon · pain medicine

Selected by applicant as the panel QME in pain medicine.

From the decision · page 311.) Applicant argued that the June 3, 2025 QME panel in orthopedic surgery, requested by defendant, was invalid because it requested a panel in the accepted SI case, rather than in the CT case that was in dispute; it erroneously requested the panel pursuant to section 4060, which only applies to compensability disputes, despite the SI claim being accepted; and it relied on a supporting document that was inapplicable because the document did not constitute a "request for medical evaluation pursuant to Section 4060" as required by section 4062.2(b). (Id. at p. 4, item 4.) Applicant noted that after obtaining the QME panel in pain medicine, applicant selected Dr. Hamilton Chen as the panel QME. (Id. at pp. 4-5, items 5 and 7.) Applicant's primary treating physician (PTP) since April 9, 2025 is Dr. Nimish Shah, a specialist in pain medicine. (Id. at p. 5, item 8.)

PTPRelied upon · pain medicine

Applicant's primary treating physician since April 9, 2025.

From the decision · page 311.) Applicant argued that the June 3, 2025 QME panel in orthopedic surgery, requested by defendant, was invalid because it requested a panel in the accepted SI case, rather than in the CT case that was in dispute; it erroneously requested the panel pursuant to section 4060, which only applies to compensability disputes, despite the SI claim being accepted; and it relied on a supporting document that was inapplicable because the document did not constitute a "request for medical evaluation pursuant to Section 4060" as required by section 4062.2(b). (Id. at p. 4, item 4.) Applicant noted that after obtaining the QME panel in pain medicine, applicant selected Dr. Hamilton Chen as the panel QME. (Id. at pp. 4-5, items 5 and 7.) Applicant's primary treating physician (PTP) since April 9, 2025 is Dr. Nimish Shah, a specialist in pain medicine. (Id. at p. 5, item 8.)

ADJ20798821 · February 6, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page