The WCJ's September 1, 2022 order was interlocutory and procedural, not final, so reconsideration was dismissed.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
From the decision · page 2Here, the WCJ's September 1, 2022 Findings, Award and Order (Order) solely resolves an
intermediate procedural issue that defendant is entitled to a replacement qualified medical
evaluator (QME) due to applicant's violation of section 4062.3. The decision does not determine
any substantive right or liability and does not determine a threshold issue. Accordingly, it is not a
"final" decision and the Petition will be dismissed to the extent it seeks reconsideration.
Applicant's February 8, 2022 letter to the QME was served simultaneously on defendant, so it was not an ex parte communication under Labor Code section 4062.3(e).
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because ex parte communications are prohibited and would warrant removal, but this was not ex parte.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ found that applicant violated section 4062.3 by his February 8, 2022 letter to the
QME. Applicant's February 8, 2022 letter to the QME was simultaneously served on defendant.
(Applicant's Exhibit No. 1, Applicant Attorney's letter to PQME Alexis Link, M.D., February 8,
2022, p. 5.) The letter was thus not an ex parte communication as that term was defined in Maxham
v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2017) 82 Cal.Comp.Cases 136, 142
(Appeals Board en banc) and did not violate section 4062.3(e).
The misleading and inflammatory language in applicant's letter to the QME warranted replacement of the QME panel.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because misleading the QME panel violates Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and justifies replacement.
From the decision · page 5The WCJ found that the misleading and inflammatory language in applicant's letter warranted a
replacement QME panel. As discussed by the WCJ in his Report:
No substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown to justify removal, and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring such a showing, which was not met here.
From the decision · page 6to provide for a new psychiatric QME panel for applicant's violation of section 4062.3(b). We are
not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or
that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final
decision adverse to applicant.