ADJ10412642 · October 6, 2026

The WCJ and WCAB found that Dr. Bonin's biomechanical report and Dr. Chauhan's supplemental report were not substantial medical evidence and should not be sent to the QME for review and comment because they were either nonmedical information or speculative and derivative medical opinions.

From the decision · page 8In declining to permit Dr. Bonin’s report or Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report to be sent to the QME, the WCJ explained in the Report as follows: Bonin’s report was not a neutral factual record. It was a retained biomechanical opinion that directly critiqued QME Dr. Hill’s causation analysis and extended into medical causation. (Defendant’s Exhibits A and B.)

Dr. Bonin’s report was a retained biomechanical opinion that directly critiqued QME Dr. Hill’s causation analysis and extended into medical causation without examination of the applicant.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This was insufficient foundation for the report to be sent to the QME and supported exclusion of the report from QME review.

From the decision · page 8In declining to permit Dr. Bonin’s report or Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report to be sent to the QME, the WCJ explained in the Report as follows: Bonin’s report was not a neutral factual record. It was a retained biomechanical opinion that directly critiqued QME Dr. Hill’s causation analysis and extended into medical causation. (Defendant’s Exhibits A and B.)

Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report was tentative, derivative, and deferred further determination to QME Dr. Hill, lacking an independently reasoned final medical opinion.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported exclusion of the supplemental report from QME review as it was based on the excluded Bonin report.

From the decision · page 8Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report independently supported the ruling. A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it rests on speculation, conjecture, or inadequate factual and medical reasoning. Dr. Chauhan’s report was tentative, derivative, and deferred. He agreed only “to a certain degree” with Bonin, stated he was not a biomechanical expert, used tentative phrases including “must assume,” “probably,” and “may be indicated,” and deferred further determination to Dr. Hill. The report therefore did not constitute an independently reasoned final medical opinion and was properly excluded from transmission to the QME. (Defendant’s Exhibit B.)

Supplemental report was tentative, derivative, and deferred further determination to QME; excluded from QME review.

Report was based on Dr. Bonin’s report and did not constitute an independently reasoned final medical opinion.

From the decision · page 8Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report independently supported the ruling. A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it rests on speculation, conjecture, or inadequate factual and medical reasoning. Dr. Chauhan’s report was tentative, derivative, and deferred. He agreed only “to a certain degree” with Bonin, stated he was not a biomechanical expert, used tentative phrases including “must assume,” “probably,” and “may be indicated,” and deferred further determination to Dr. Hill. The report therefore did not constitute an independently reasoned final medical opinion and was properly excluded from transmission to the QME. (Defendant’s Exhibit B.)

Thoroughly considered applicant’s history in assessing causation of industrial injuries following in-person examination.

From the decision · page 9Dr. Hill’s initial QME Report, following an in-person examination of applicant, thoroughly considers applicant’s history in assessing causation of applicant’s industrial injuries. (App. Exh. 1, QME Evaluation Report, Dr. Hill, December 12, 2016.) Dr. Bonin’s report, on the other hand, obtained ten years after the date of injury and without examination of applicant, appears to do precisely what is prohibited by Batten, which is attempt to rebut, outside of the med/legal process, QME Dr. Hill’s opinion that applicant’s cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine injuries were the result of applicant’s head striking the locker door, causing compression to the entire spine. (Def. Exh. A, MEA Forensic Report, p. 9, ¶ 2-p. 13, ¶ 2.) We emphasize that defendant has already stipulated to injury AOE/COE. The WCJ also noted that applicant’s procedural objection to transmission of Dr.

Provided a biomechanical report critiquing QME Dr. Hill’s causation analysis but was found not qualified to render medical opinions and the report was excluded from QME review.

Report was not a neutral factual record and moved beyond mechanics into medical causation without examination of applicant.

From the decision · page 8In declining to permit Dr. Bonin’s report or Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report to be sent to the QME, the WCJ explained in the Report as follows: Bonin’s report was not a neutral factual record. It was a retained biomechanical opinion that directly critiqued QME Dr. Hill’s causation analysis and extended into medical causation. (Defendant’s Exhibits A and B.)

Maxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2017) 82 Cal.Comp.Cases 136

Maxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2017) distinguishes between 'communications' and 'information' under section 4062.3, clarifying what constitutes medical records and relevant information.

The WCJ found Dr. Bonin’s report to be nonmedical information and thus not appropriate for QME review.

From the decision · page 6(1) Records prepared or maintained by the employee’s treating physician or physicians.

Lab. Code, § 4062.3

Section 4062.3 of the Labor Code governs the provision of medical and non-medical records to the QME and requires compliance with procedural rules before such records may be provided.

The WCJ exercised discretion to exclude Dr. Bonin’s and Dr. Chauhan’s reports from QME review as they did not meet the criteria for admissible medical evidence under section 4062.3.

From the decision · page 55 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based on the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the Report, and as discussed below, 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 petitioner. Section 4062.3 permits medical and non-medical records to be provided to the QME and lays out detailed requirements about the procedures that must be followed before such records may be provided. (Lab. Code, § 4062.3(a)- (l).) Specifically, Section 4062.3 states in relevant part:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 35(d)

AD Rule 35(d) provides that non-medical records or information proposed to be sent to an evaluator shall not be provided if objected to within 10 days unless ordered by a WCJ.

Applicant’s objection to transmission of Dr. Bonin’s report was late but reasonable and preserved the objection; the WCJ properly exercised authority to exclude the report from QME review.

From the decision · page 6(Lab. Code, § 4062.3(a)-(b).) In Maxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2017) 82 Cal.Comp.Cases 136, 138 (Appeals Board en banc), the Appeals Board distinguished between “communications” and “information,” clarifying that “‘Information,’ as that term is used in section 4062.3, “constitutes (1) records prepared or maintained by the employee’s treating physician or physicians, and/or (2) medical and nonmedical records relevant to determination of the medical issues.” Further, AD Rule 35(d) provides in relevant part: (d) If the opposing party objects within 10 days to any non-medical records or information proposed to be sent to an evaluator, those records and that information shall not be provided to the evaluator unless so ordered by a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge.

Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803

Suon v. California Dairies (2018) clarifies that WCJs have authority to resolve disputes about what information may be provided to the QME and that objections must be timely to preserve rights.

The WCJ exercised discretion to exclude Dr. Bonin’s and Dr. Chauhan’s reports from QME review based on procedural and substantive grounds.

From the decision · page 7In Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803, 1811-1812 (Appeals Board en banc), we explained that parties must comply with the provisions of section 4062.3 before providing medical records to the QME. We held that WCJs “have the authority to address discovery disputes, which includes disputes regarding what information may be provided to the QME. If the parties cannot informally agree on what information to provide to the QME, the trier of fact is empowered to determine whether the information may be provided to the QME.” (Id. at p. 1814.) Moreover, it is the trier of fact who has the authority to determine what information may be provided to the QME if the parties cannot informally agree on what information to provide to the QME. (Ibid.) Thus, because there was no treating relationship between applicant and Dr. Bonin, the discretion rests with the WCJ whether to allow Dr. Bonin’s report and Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report where he considered Dr. Bonin’s report, to be provided to QME Dr. Hill. (Cal.

Batten v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1009

Batten v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) holds that reports by experts retained solely to rebut a QME’s opinion are not admissible under sections 4605 and 4061(i).

Dr. Bonin’s report was excluded as it attempted to rebut QME Dr. Hill’s opinion outside the medical/legal process.

Dr. Bonin’s report was not a neutral factual record but a retained biomechanical opinion critiquing QME Dr. Hill’s causation analysis and extending into medical causation.

From the decision · page 8In declining to permit Dr. Bonin’s report or Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report to be sent to the QME, the WCJ explained in the Report as follows: Bonin’s report was not a neutral factual record. It was a retained biomechanical opinion that directly critiqued QME Dr. Hill’s causation analysis and extended into medical causation. (Defendant’s Exhibits A and B.)

Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report was tentative, derivative, and deferred further determination to QME Dr. Hill, lacking independent medical reasoning.

From the decision · page 8Dr. Chauhan’s supplemental report independently supported the ruling. A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it rests on speculation, conjecture, or inadequate factual and medical reasoning. Dr. Chauhan’s report was tentative, derivative, and deferred. He agreed only “to a certain degree” with Bonin, stated he was not a biomechanical expert, used tentative phrases including “must assume,” “probably,” and “may be indicated,” and deferred further determination to Dr. Hill. The report therefore did not constitute an independently reasoned final medical opinion and was properly excluded from transmission to the QME. (Defendant’s Exhibit B.)