What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted; June 18, 2025 Findings and Order replacing Dr. Peter Turek rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for Removal of June 18, 2025 Findings and Order seeking removal of psychiatric PQME Dr. Peter Turek for alleged violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(b).
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold February 24, 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.
The Appeals Board found the WCJ's replacement order lacked sufficient rationale and failed to show prejudice or why less drastic measures were not available, and that good cause existed to decline replacement of Dr. Turek as PQME.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of a June 18, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered replacement of psychiatric panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Dr. Peter Turek, based upon a finding that applicant's service upon Dr. Turek of "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" constituted "information" in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.3(b). (F&O, June 18, 2025, p. 2.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's attorney served Kite summaries and excerpts to Dr. Turek simultaneously with the orthopedic QME report.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This constituted a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and was the basis for the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of a June 18, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered replacement of psychiatric panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Dr. Peter Turek, based upon a finding that applicant's service upon Dr. Turek of "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" constituted "information" in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.3(b). (F&O, June 18, 2025, p. 2.)
The WCJ failed to provide evidence of prejudice or explain why less drastic measures were unavailable.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of rationale led the Board to rescind the replacement order and grant removal.
From the decision · page 6In the original November 20, 2024 Findings and Order, the WCJ ordered a replacement of Dr. Turek as the psyche PQME because, per the WCJ, the information provided by applicant "had a prejudicial effect upon [his] opinions." (Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision, November 20, 2024, p. 3.) The WCJ, however, failed to provide supporting evidence of said prejudice.
Applicant is currently incarcerated, and the Board considered this in declining to replace Dr. Turek again.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supported the Board's decision to grant removal and return the matter for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 8Given that applicant is currently incarcerated, and taking into consideration the nature of the "information," as well as the other factors set forth in Suon, including, but not limited to our constitutional mandate to "accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character," we find that good cause exists to decline to replace Dr. Turek as the PQME in this case, and to return this matter back to the trial level for such further discovery or other proceedings deemed necessary by the WCJ.
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.
Found work injury was the predominant cause of applicant's PTSD.
Dr. Turek's evaluation and report were central to the dispute over his removal as PQME due to alleged improper information service.
From the decision · page 2The parties proceeded with discovery and retained Dr. Turek as the psychiatric PQME. On May 17, 2023, Dr. Turek evaluated the applicant and issued an initial report dated June 9, 2023, wherein he found that the work injury was "the predominant cause of applicant's PTSD." (Exhibit CC, p. 15.) On August 30, 2023, Dr. Turek was deposed by the parties. Immediately prior to the deposition, applicant's attorney sent Dr. Turek and defendant an email with attachments consisting of a November 12, 2021 report of orthopedic QME, Dr. Klassen and "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" with "hand-written notations presumably written by Applicant's Attorney." (F&O, p. 2.) On October 12, 2023, defendant filed a "Petition for Replacement of Panel QME" alleging that the information provided by applicant's attorney to Dr. Turek was served in violation of section 4062.3(b) and "had a highly prejudicial effect." (Petition for Replacement of Panel QME, October 12, 2023, p.
Provided a report dated November 12, 2021, which was served to Dr. Turek with Kite summaries.
The orthopedic QME report was part of the information allegedly improperly served to Dr. Turek.
From the decision · page 2The parties proceeded with discovery and retained Dr. Turek as the psychiatric PQME. On May 17, 2023, Dr. Turek evaluated the applicant and issued an initial report dated June 9, 2023, wherein he found that the work injury was "the predominant cause of applicant's PTSD." (Exhibit CC, p. 15.) On August 30, 2023, Dr. Turek was deposed by the parties. Immediately prior to the deposition, applicant's attorney sent Dr. Turek and defendant an email with attachments consisting of a November 12, 2021 report of orthopedic QME, Dr. Klassen and "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" with "hand-written notations presumably written by Applicant's Attorney." (F&O, p. 2.) On October 12, 2023, defendant filed a "Petition for Replacement of Panel QME" alleging that the information provided by applicant's attorney to Dr. Turek was served in violation of section 4062.3(b) and "had a highly prejudicial effect." (Petition for Replacement of Panel QME, October 12, 2023, p.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4062.3(b)
Labor Code section 4062.3(b) prohibits serving information to a QME without serving the opposing party 20 days prior.
The Board found that the simultaneous service of Kite summaries and excerpts to Dr. Turek violated this statute.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of a June 18, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered replacement of psychiatric panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Dr. Peter Turek, based upon a finding that applicant's service upon Dr. Turek of "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" constituted "information" in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.3(b). (F&O, June 18, 2025, p. 2.)
Maxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2017) 82 Cal.Comp.Cases 136
The WCJ has wide discretion to fashion remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b), including replacement of the QME.
The Board reviewed the WCJ's exercise of discretion and found it lacked sufficient rationale.
From the decision · page 5With respect to remedies available in such instances, we concluded that although there is no specific Labor Code section which addresses the issue, Maxham and Suon provided guidance. Pursuant to Maxham, "[i]f the WCJ determines that applicant improperly provided `information' to the AMEs, he has wide discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy for the violation of section 4062.3(c)." (Maxham, supra, at p. 147.) Maxham, however, only addressed situations involving improper "information" having been provided to an AME, in violation of section 4062(c), and the WCJ's wide discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy for such a violation.
Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803
Factors to consider in remedying violations of section 4062.3(b) include prejudicial impact, timeline, good faith efforts, and constitutional mandate for substantial justice.
The Board applied these factors and found the WCJ's order insufficiently justified.
From the decision · page 5In Suon, we addressed the issue of a violation of section 4062.3(b) as it relates to a QME, and stated that: 1) information that a party proposes to provide to the QME must be served on the opposing party 20 days before it is provided to the QME; 2) medical records and nonmedical records are treated differently by the Labor Code; and 3) if the parties are unable, in good faith, to informally resolve the dispute about what information is to be provided to the QME, then the trier of fact has wide discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy for a violation of section 4062.3(b) pursuant to the Appeals Board's judicial powers to address discovery disputes. We further held that:
Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686
The right to cross-examine the PQME or request supplemental reports may be less drastic measures than replacement.
The Board noted that the WCJ did not consider these less drastic measures adequately.
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the WCJ's F&O lacks "careful and accurate review" and fails to "prove prejudice[,]" or show why, pursuant to the recent case of Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (Appeals Bd. en banc), defendant couldn't simply cross examine Dr. Turek or request a supplemental report in order to determine whether Dr. Turek "did or did not rely on proper legal principals or truthful facts" in the writing of his opinion. (Petition, pp. 3, 12.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's attorney served Dr. Turek with summaries and excerpts from Kite decisions simultaneously with the orthopedic QME report, violating Labor Code section 4062.3(b).
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of a June 18, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered replacement of psychiatric panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Dr. Peter Turek, based upon a finding that applicant's service upon Dr. Turek of "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" constituted "information" in violation of Labor Code1 section 4062.3(b). (F&O, June 18, 2025, p. 2.)
WCJ failed to provide evidence of prejudice caused by the violation and did not explain why less drastic measures were unavailable.
From the decision · page 6In the original November 20, 2024 Findings and Order, the WCJ ordered a replacement of Dr. Turek as the psyche PQME because, per the WCJ, the information provided by applicant "had a prejudicial effect upon [his] opinions." (Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision, November 20, 2024, p. 3.) The WCJ, however, failed to provide supporting evidence of said prejudice.
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.