What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board amended the Findings to find that the QME panel number 7336281 is invalid because the panel request was premature under Labor Code section 4062.2(b) and WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2).
Defendant sought removal of the Findings issued by the WCJ on December 28, 2020, challenging the validity of the QME panel request as premature.
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.
QME/AME processDefendant prevailedbilateral upper extremities · shoulders · arms · hands · fingers
The panel request was premature because the applicant did not wait the required time under Labor Code section 4062.2(b) plus the additional mailing time under WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) due to the carrier's address being outside California but within the United States.
From the decision · page 6The WCJ in this matter concluded that applicant's panel request was not premature because he waited 16 days from the date of mailing of defendant's claim delay notice before submitting his request. This conclusion would be correct if the insurance carrier's address of record was within California and the applicable mailbox extension was five calendar days per WCAB Rule 10605(a)(1). WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) extends the period for exercising any right by ten calendar days instead of five days from the date of service if the place of mailing of the party being served is outside of California but within the United States. The carrier's address of record is located in Kansas City, MO, i.e., outside of California but within the United States. Consequently, applicant was obligated to wait ten days from the date of mailing of the May 4, 2020 claim delay notice per section 4062.2(b) plus an additional ten days per WCAB Rule 10605(a)(2) before requesting a panel. His panel request on May 20, 2020 was thus premature and the resulting panel is invalid.