What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; August 24, 2022 Amended Findings of Fact and Order affirmed except amended to find QME panel no. 2839682 valid and rescinding order to obtain new QME panel.
Petition for Reconsideration of the August 24, 2022 Amended Findings of Fact and Order granted to review validity of QME panel and procedural correctness of QME panel request after applicant obtained legal representation.
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 parties had completed the procedural steps to obtain a valid QME panel while applicant was unrepresented, and applicant's request for a new panel after retaining counsel was proper under Labor Code section 4062.2 and Romero precedent. The WCJ's invalidation of the panel was reversed as it would cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal from the August 24, 2022 Amended Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a respiratory therapist on October 24, 2021, sustained industrial injury to left knee. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant's QME panel was invalid, and that the parties were required to start the panel QME selection process anew.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant requested a panel of orthopedic QMEs while unrepresented and the panel was validly issued.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Established that the initial QME panel was properly obtained under Labor Code section 4062.1, forming the basis for subsequent procedural rights.
From the decision · page 2On January 20, 2022, the unrepresented applicant requested a panel of orthopedic Qualified Medical Evaluators, pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.1.
Applicant retained legal counsel after the initial panel was issued but before any QME evaluation was conducted.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant's retention of counsel triggered the right to request a new QME panel under Labor Code section 4062.2 and Romero precedent.
From the decision · page 5Thereafter, on March 3, 2022, applicant retained legal counsel, and on March 7, 2022,
The WCJ invalidated the replacement QME panel no. 2839682, requiring the parties to obtain a new panel, which was found to cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Appeals Board reversed this invalidation, affirming the panel's validity and rescinding the order for a new panel to prevent prejudice to applicant.
From the decision · page 7Accordingly, and applying the removal standard, we are persuaded that the decision of the WCJ to invalidate panel no. 2839682 will result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm. We will therefore grant reconsideration and affirm the F&O, except that we will amend Findings of Fact Number 3 to reflect that panel no. 2839682 was validly obtained, and rescind Orders No. 1 and 2.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code sections 4061, 4062, 4062.1, 4062.2
Governs the procedure for obtaining and objecting to QME panels and the rights of represented and unrepresented applicants.
From the decision · page 4Once the parties have identified a medical dispute, the procedure for obtaining a panel of QMEs where applicant is not represented is governed by section 4062.1, which provides in pertinent part:
CA-WCAB Significant Panel Decision
Romero v. Costco Wholesale (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 824
Established that an unrepresented applicant who has not received a QME evaluation may request a new QME panel after obtaining legal representation without restarting the entire QME process.
From the decision · page 5In the significant panel decision Romero, the unrepresented applicant's treating physician issued a report recommending physical therapy, to which defendant objected.2 Pursuant to section
CA-WCAB Panel Decision
City of Tracy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Luckhardt) (2019) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 838
Confirmed that an applicant who obtained a QME panel while unrepresented but had not received a QME evaluation is entitled to a new panel after retaining counsel.
From the decision · page 6Similarly, in City of Tracy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Luckhardt) (2019) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 838 [2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 73] (Luckhardt), the parties satisfied the prerequisites to obtaining a QME panel in orthopedic surgery while applicant was unrepresented. Following issuance of the panel, but prior to any QME evaluation, applicant retained counsel. Applicant's counsel then requested and received a new panel of QMEs in pain management, pursuant to Romero. We affirmed the WCJ's determination that while the parties had completed the process necessary to obtaining a QME while applicant was unrepresented, the applicant had not yet received a comprehensive medical-legal evaluation by a QME, and was thus entitled to a new panel of QMEs under section 4062.2. (Id. at 840-841.)
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.