What the panel ordered
Petition for removal/reconsideration denied; order replacing PQME Dr. Wiseman affirmed.
Defendant petitioned for removal/reconsideration of the WCJ's order replacing PQME Dr. Wiseman for improper service of his report; the WCAB reviewed and denied the petition.
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.
PQME Dr. Wiseman failed to serve his report on all parties within the statutory timeframe, constituting a violation of 8 CCR 36 and Labor Code requirements; this defect was not cured by later service by defense counsel. The integrity of the process and neutrality of the QME require concurrent service on all parties.
From the decision · page 8From the evidence available, it appears PQME Dr. Wiseman did not complete the formal medical evaluation. PQME Dr. Wiseman did not prepare and serve the comprehensive medical- legal evaluation report on the injured worker, his attorney, the claims administrator or the employer, within thirty days of seeing the applicant. Instead, PQME Dr. Wiseman only served the report on the insurance carrier with a proof of service on The Hartford Syracuse for a Kentucky post office box, mailed date August 6, 2024, from Los Angeles. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 51.) Such service is on its face is defective. As stated by the WCJ in the Report:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
PQME Dr. Wiseman only served his report on the insurance carrier, not on applicant or applicant's attorney.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Failure to serve all parties within the statutory timeframe violated regulatory and statutory requirements, justifying replacement of the QME.
From the decision · page 8From the evidence available, it appears PQME Dr. Wiseman did not complete the formal medical evaluation. PQME Dr. Wiseman did not prepare and serve the comprehensive medical- legal evaluation report on the injured worker, his attorney, the claims administrator or the employer, within thirty days of seeing the applicant. Instead, PQME Dr. Wiseman only served the report on the insurance carrier with a proof of service on The Hartford Syracuse for a Kentucky post office box, mailed date August 6, 2024, from Los Angeles. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 51.) Such service is on its face is defective. As stated by the WCJ in the Report:
No reliable evidence applicant's attorney received the report before filing DOR; court assumed receipt 5 days after later service by defense counsel.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of timely service on applicant's attorney meant the statutory deadline was not met, supporting replacement of the QME.
From the decision · page 3There is no evidence in the record of exactly when applicant's attorney received the report. The e-mail address listed on the proof of service is not contained elsewhere within any pleading filed in the instant matter. Without any other evidence available to review, the Court must simply assume that if served, the report would have been received by applicant's attorney 5 days later, on or about October 30, 2024. (8 CCR 10605).
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.
PQME Dr. Wiseman issued a report after examining applicant, but failed to serve it on all parties as required; his report was not considered due to improper service.
Report not properly served on all parties within required timeframe; integrity of process compromised.
From the decision · page 8From the evidence available, it appears PQME Dr. Wiseman did not complete the formal medical evaluation. PQME Dr. Wiseman did not prepare and serve the comprehensive medical- legal evaluation report on the injured worker, his attorney, the claims administrator or the employer, within thirty days of seeing the applicant. Instead, PQME Dr. Wiseman only served the report on the insurance carrier with a proof of service on The Hartford Syracuse for a Kentucky post office box, mailed date August 6, 2024, from Los Angeles. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 51.) Such service is on its face is defective. As stated by the WCJ in the Report:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code §§ 4062.5, 139.2(j)(1); Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514 (en banc)
A party may seek to replace a QME under section 4062.5 where an evaluation takes place and the report prepared from that evaluation is untimely served on all parties.
PQME Dr. Wiseman failed to serve his report on all parties within the statutory timeframe, justifying replacement.
From the decision · page 7(Vazquez, supra, at pages 522-523.) Section 4062.5 provides that "[i]f a qualified medical evaluator selected from a panel fails to complete the formal medical evaluation within the timeframes established by the administrative director pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 139.2, a new evaluation may be obtained upon the request of either party." Section 139.2 specifically authorizes the administrative director (AD) to adopt regulations concerning the "[s]tandards governing the timeframes within which medical evaluations shall be prepared and submitted by agreed and qualified medical evaluators. Except as provided in this subdivision, the timeframe for initial medical evaluations to be prepared and submitted shall be no more than 30 days after the evaluator has seen the employee or otherwise commenced the medical evaluation procedure." (Lab. Code, § 139.2(j)(1)(A).) "[W]hen sections 4062.5 and 139.2(j)(1) are read together, a party's statutory right to seek replacement of a QME in represented cases arises when the QME fails to timely issue a report following a medical evaluation." (Vazquez, supra, page 523, emphasis in original.)
8 CCR 36
8 CCR 36 requires QME to concurrently serve the report on all necessary parties to ensure neutrality and integrity of the process.
PQME Dr. Wiseman's failure to serve all parties rendered his report defective and justified replacement.
From the decision · page 8Here, although defendant eventually served a copy of the report on applicant's attorney, this does not cure the QME's violation of 8 CCR 36. 8 CCR 36 ensures the appearance of disinterest and neutrality on the part of the QME and affords each party the same opportunity to respond to a report as it arrives. Thus, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it is imperative that the QME concurrently serves the report on all necessary parties. The failure to serve all parties and the QME's use of an unlisted address for defendant casts a shadow upon the QME's report and gives rise to questions regarding the integrity of the process.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Proof of service showed PQME Dr. Wiseman only served the report on the insurance carrier, not on applicant or applicant's attorney.
From the decision · page 2On July 17, 2024, PQME Charles Wiseman, M.D., electronically examined applicant and issued a report signed electronically on August 2, 2024. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 47.) At end of the report is a proof of service by mail on The Hartford Syracuse at a Kentucky post office box, dated August 6, 2024, from Dr. Wiseman's Los Angeles office and with no other entities served. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 51.) There is a later proof of service by mail dated October 25, 2024, from Brea, California, by defense counsel, showing service on applicant's counsel at a physical address and email address and service on the adjustor by EDM E-mail only. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 4.)
No evidence applicant's attorney received the report before filing DOR; court assumed receipt 5 days after later service by defense counsel.
From the decision · page 3There is no evidence in the record of exactly when applicant's attorney received the report. The e-mail address listed on the proof of service is not contained elsewhere within any pleading filed in the instant matter. Without any other evidence available to review, the Court must simply assume that if served, the report would have been received by applicant's attorney 5 days later, on or about October 30, 2024. (8 CCR 10605).
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.