What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Order of May 12, 2026, and substituted a new decision finding Dr. Roach was the primary treating physician and Dr. Bolling should remain as QME.p. 5
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order of May 12, 2026, which found admitted industrial injury and invalidated QME panel 349235 and excluded Dr. Bolling's reports. The WCAB granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's findings removing Dr. Bolling as QME.
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 WCAB found that Nurse Uichanco was acting under Dr. Roach's supervision, making Dr. Roach the primary treating physician under Labor Code section 3209.10, and that the QME process was properly initiated. The WCAB granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's removal of Dr. Bolling as QME, allowing Dr. Bolling to remain as QME.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ found that the QME process was not correctly initiated apparently because the QME process is triggered by an objection to a “primary treating physician” and that neither Nurse Uichanco, nor Dr. Roach was a “primary treating physician.” However, Labor Code section 3209.10(a) plainly states:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Nurse Uichanco was performing medical treatment under Dr. Roach's supervision as authorized by Labor Code section 3209.10.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established Dr. Roach as the primary treating physician, validating the QME process initiation and Dr. Bolling's role as QME.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ found that the QME process was not correctly initiated apparently because the QME process is triggered by an objection to a “primary treating physician” and that neither Nurse Uichanco, nor Dr. Roach was a “primary treating physician.” However, Labor Code section 3209.10(a) plainly states:
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 to be the primary treating physician supervising Nurse Uichanco, validating the QME process initiation.
The WCAB found that Nurse Uichanco was acting under Dr. Roach's supervision, making Dr. Roach the primary treating physician under Labor Code section 3209.10.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ found that the QME process was not correctly initiated apparently because the QME process is triggered by an objection to a “primary treating physician” and that neither Nurse Uichanco, nor Dr. Roach was a “primary treating physician.” However, Labor Code section 3209.10(a) plainly states:
Allowed to remain as QME after reconsideration, with two reports issued in the case.
The WCAB reversed the WCJ's removal of Dr. Bolling as QME, finding no legal reason to exclude him and noting his involvement for almost two years.
From the decision · page 5Bolling has been involved in this case for almost two years and has issued two reports. “If an employee has received a comprehensive medical-legal evaluation under this section, and he or she later becomes represented by an attorney, he or she shall not be entitled to an additional evaluation.” (Lab. Code sec. 4062.1, subd. (e).) We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ’s decision, and issue a new decision finding that Dr. Roach was the primary treating physician and that Dr. Bolling should remain as QME. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order of May 12, 2026 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings and Order of May 12, 2026 is RESCINDED and that the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3209.10
Labor Code section 3209.10
Defines the primary treating physician status including supervision of nurse practitioners.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ found that the QME process was not correctly initiated apparently because the QME process is triggered by an objection to a “primary treating physician” and that neither Nurse Uichanco, nor Dr. Roach was a “primary treating physician.” However, Labor Code section 3209.10(a) plainly states:
Labor Code section 4062 and 4062.1
Labor Code section 4062 and 4062.1
Governs the QME panel selection and evaluation process.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ found that the QME process was not correctly initiated apparently because the QME process is triggered by an objection to a “primary treating physician” and that neither Nurse Uichanco, nor Dr. Roach was a “primary treating physician.” However, Labor Code section 3209.10(a) plainly states:
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785, subd. (a)(1)
Administrative Director Rule 9785(a)(1)
Defines the primary treating physician and its interpretation in harmony with Labor Code section 3209.10.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ found that the QME process was not correctly initiated apparently because the QME process is triggered by an objection to a “primary treating physician” and that neither Nurse Uichanco, nor Dr. Roach was a “primary treating physician.” However, Labor Code section 3209.10(a) plainly states:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Nurse Uichanco's May 29, 2024 report and Dr. Roach's review of it
From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, applicant sustained industrial injury and began receiving treatment from nurse practitioner Barbara Uichanco of Kawea Health Medical Group. Applicant was not represented by an attorney at this time. Applicant began receiving care by Nurse Uichanco in early 2022 and continued receiving care from Nurse Uichanco until at least August of 2024. (October 10, 2024 report of Dr. Bolling at pp. 8-25.) Applicant was also seen by Bruce Le, D.O. of Orthopedic Associates who issued reports entitled “consultation reports” and by Vincent Gomez, M.D. of Sierra Pacific Orthopedics who she was referred to by Kawea Health. (October 10, 2024 report of Dr. Bolling at pp. 8-25; Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 19, 2026 trial at p. 4.) Nurse Uichanco issued a report on May 29, 2024. Nurse Uichanco checked off that applicant should remain off-work and wrote in the report that applicant should have “the QME
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.