What the panel ordered
The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's order for a replacement QME panel.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order issued on September 27, 2023, which found the QME report not substantial evidence and ordered a replacement QME panel.
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 QME changed his opinion without proper reasoning, undermining the reliability of his medical-legal opinions, leading the WCJ and WCAB to find the report not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 3found the "medical opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) Dr. Mohan Nair, is not
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
QME Dr. Nair initially opined causation of applicant's bilateral leg/knee impairment from the August 10, 2017 industrial injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This initial opinion formed the basis for the medical-legal evidence supporting the claim.
From the decision · page 2QME determined that "the reasonable medical probability is that the applicant's current bilateral
QME Dr. Nair changed his opinion in deposition, stating he could no longer conclude causation to a reasonable medical probability.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This change undermined the reliability of the medical-legal evidence, leading to the WCJ's finding that the QME report was not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 2A. Yeah, you know, I have a change in my opinion about causation. Yeah, so both those statements on the causation, the reasonable medical probability is that the applicant's current bilateral leg, knee impairment is caused by the 8-10-2017 industrial injury; and the second statement, that there is a consequential injury, ankles, as a result of ambulatory problems, gait problems and obesity, both of those are
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.
Initially opined that applicant's bilateral leg/knee impairment was caused by the industrial injury of August 10, 2017, but later changed his opinion in deposition stating he could no longer conclude causation to a reasonable medical probability.
The QME changed his opinion after deposition, undermining the reliability of his initial report and opinions.
From the decision · page 2Mohan Nair, M.D., in his capacity as orthopedic QME, evaluated applicant on December
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162
Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories.
Applied to reject the QME report as substantial evidence due to the QME's change of opinion without proper reasoning.
From the decision · page 6The California Supreme Court has observed that not all expert medical opinion constitutes substantial evidence upon which the Board may rest its decision. "Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories." (Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
QME Dr. Nair's change of opinion in deposition without proper reasoning
From the decision · page 3Here, Dr. Nair changed his opinion without setting forth proper reasoning in support of his altered conclusion regarding injury. Instead, he simply states that he has finally been more careful and less hasty in his performing his duties as a QME. In addition to falling woefully short of constituting substantial evidence in this case, this statement from Dr. Nair in his deposition raises the question of whether any of his medical-legal opinions are reliable enough to meet the substantial evidence standard if his deposition is never scheduled.
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.