What the panel ordered
Applicant's petition for reconsideration dismissed as untimely; Defendant's petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's Findings and Orders affirmed with amendments to include date of injury and invalidity of QME panel number 3686064.p. 8
Petitions for reconsideration filed by applicant and defendant seeking review of WCJ Findings of Fact and Orders issued June 30, 2026; applicant's petition dismissed as untimely; defendant's petition granted to amend Findings and Orders.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold October 27, 2025.
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 petition was filed after the 25-day deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration, rendering it untimely and subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report, the Report was served on July 30, 2026 and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 30, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on July 30, 2026. II. We first consider applicant’s Petition. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a “final” decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California, and 30 days when one of the parties is out of state. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
The QME panel was found invalid because the statutory requirements for obtaining the panel were not met, including lack of timely objection and failure to provide the panel request form to the applicant.
From the decision · page 7Here, the applicant’s QME panel request failed to comply with the statutory requirements described above. It is unclear from the record how the panel was obtained. Specifically, although validity of QME panel number 3686064 was at issue for trial, there is no evidence that either party objected to a medical determination by a treating physician within 30 days, or any agreed upon time extension, from the receipt of any treating physician report in compliance with section 4062(a). (Lab. Code, § 4062(a).) Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant provided a form to applicant to request a panel QME within 10 days per section 4062.1(b). (Lab. Code, § 4062.1(b).) The WCJ found that QME panel number 3686064 was valid based on the August 5, 2025, Stipulation and Order that states: THE QME APPOINTMENT WITH DR. WIESELTIER SET FOR 8/14/25 WILL BE CANCELLED PENDING DETERMINATION BY THE WCAB ON WHETHER THE QME PANEL IS APPROPRIATE. IF THE PANEL IS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE A QME APPOINTMENT WILL BE RESCHEDULED AS APPROPRIATE. (All capitals in original.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's petition for reconsideration was filed on July 29, 2026, after the 25-day deadline from the June 30, 2026 Findings and Orders service date.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This rendered the petition untimely and subject to dismissal under Labor Code and WCAB regulations.
From the decision · page 4for reconsideration of the WCJ’s F&O. The next business day that is 25 days from the F&O was Monday, July 27, 2026.(See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).) The applicant’s Petition was filed days later, on July 29, 2026, rendering it untimely, and we will dismiss it.
No evidence showed that defendant objected to a treating physician's medical determination within 30 days or that the panel request form was provided to applicant within 10 days as required by statute.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure to comply with statutory requirements invalidated the QME panel number 3686064.
From the decision · page 7Here, the applicant’s QME panel request failed to comply with the statutory requirements described above. It is unclear from the record how the panel was obtained. Specifically, although validity of QME panel number 3686064 was at issue for trial, there is no evidence that either party objected to a medical determination by a treating physician within 30 days, or any agreed upon time extension, from the receipt of any treating physician report in compliance with section 4062(a). (Lab. Code, § 4062(a).) Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant provided a form to applicant to request a panel QME within 10 days per section 4062.1(b). (Lab. Code, § 4062.1(b).) The WCJ found that QME panel number 3686064 was valid based on the August 5, 2025, Stipulation and Order that states: THE QME APPOINTMENT WITH DR. WIESELTIER SET FOR 8/14/25 WILL BE CANCELLED PENDING DETERMINATION BY THE WCAB ON WHETHER THE QME PANEL IS APPROPRIATE. IF THE PANEL IS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE A QME APPOINTMENT WILL BE RESCHEDULED AS APPROPRIATE. (All capitals in original.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10600, 10605(a)(1), 10940(a), 10615(b)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within the prescribed time limits to be considered timely and within the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board.
Applicant's petition was filed after the deadline, thus untimely and dismissed.
From the decision · page 4Here, according to the proof of service for the Report, the Report was served on July 30, 2026 and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 30, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on July 30, 2026. II. We first consider applicant’s Petition. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a “final” decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California, and 30 days when one of the parties is out of state. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
Lab. Code, §§ 4062(a), 4062.1(b)-(c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)
The validity of a QME panel must comply with statutory requirements including timely objection and proper issuance procedures.
The QME panel was invalidated due to failure to meet statutory requirements for issuance and objection.
From the decision · page 7Here, the applicant’s QME panel request failed to comply with the statutory requirements described above. It is unclear from the record how the panel was obtained. Specifically, although validity of QME panel number 3686064 was at issue for trial, there is no evidence that either party objected to a medical determination by a treating physician within 30 days, or any agreed upon time extension, from the receipt of any treating physician report in compliance with section 4062(a). (Lab. Code, § 4062(a).) Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant provided a form to applicant to request a panel QME within 10 days per section 4062.1(b). (Lab. Code, § 4062.1(b).) The WCJ found that QME panel number 3686064 was valid based on the August 5, 2025, Stipulation and Order that states: THE QME APPOINTMENT WITH DR. WIESELTIER SET FOR 8/14/25 WILL BE CANCELLED PENDING DETERMINATION BY THE WCAB ON WHETHER THE QME PANEL IS APPROPRIATE. IF THE PANEL IS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE A QME APPOINTMENT WILL BE RESCHEDULED AS APPROPRIATE. (All capitals in original.)
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.