What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ decision affirmed except amended to require parties to meet and confer on selection of an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) before appointing Dr. Anderson as regular physician if no agreement; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Defendant sought removal or reconsideration of the WCJ's October 3, 2024 Findings and Orders replacing QME Dr. Bronshvag with Dr. Anderson as regular physician; WCJ had found good cause for replacement under Labor Code section 5701.
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 WCJ found good cause to replace QME Dr. Bronshvag due to incomplete and inconsistent medical opinions and the inability to obtain a QME panel in internal medicine oncology, and appointed Dr. Anderson as regular physician; the WCAB affirmed but required parties to meet and confer on an AME before Dr. Anderson's appointment.
From the decision · page 3On October 3, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&O, finding in relevant part "good cause to replace QME, Michael Bronshvag, M.D., with Scott T. Anderson, M.D., who I will appoint as a regular physician pursuant to section 5701, to succeed him with respect to evaluation and reporting on all the relevant internal medicine medical/legal issues posed by this case." (Finding of Fact No. 3.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Bronshvag's medical opinions were incomplete and inconsistent, and he requested additional specialist input which could not be obtained due to lack of available QME panels in internal medicine oncology.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This justified the WCJ's finding of good cause to replace the QME and appoint a regular physician to expedite resolution.
From the decision · page 2On November 11, 2023, at the joint request of the parties, and in response to Dr. Bronshvag's reporting and testimony that he believed an oncologist opinion would be necessary and/or helpful in order for him to complete his reporting, I issued an order for the Medical Unit to create a QME panel in Internal Medicine Oncology. Unfortunately, the Medical Unit was unable to do so, because there were less than five doctors in that QME specialty at present. (See Medical Unit letter dated December 5, 2023. (Applicant's 1.) This is an issue because Dr. Bronshvag in his deposition testimony on December 23, 2023 at p. 35, (Joint 102)... basically testified that before doing so he wanted to have a genitourinary specialist who "evaluates people with bladder deformities every day" to examine the Applicant and review his report before doing so. (Id. at pp. 30-32.) At page 33, lines 9-11, he says, "I would really prefer the [bladder] rating be done by
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.
Provided nine reports and deposition but failed to provide final substantive opinions on hypertension and requested additional specialist input for bladder issues.
The WCJ found Dr. Bronshvag's reports incomplete and inconsistent, warranting replacement.
From the decision · page 2Previously, internist Adam Duhan, M.D., acted as the internal medicine QME, up until his untimely death. He issued five reports over the period May 31, 2017 through August 22, 2018, (Joint 103) and was deposed on January 8, 2018. (Joint 104.) After the passing of Dr. Duhan in June of 2019, a replacement QME panel issue and after respective strikes, he was replaced by internist Michael Bronshvag. Dr. Bronshvag has seen the Applicant on three occasions and has issued nine different reports covering the period August 25, 2020 through April 25, 2023. (Joint 101.) He was also deposed on October 23, 2023. (Joint 102.)
Appointed as regular physician to replace QME Dr. Bronshvag if parties fail to agree on AME.
Appointed by WCJ under Labor Code section 5701 to expedite resolution.
From the decision · page 3On October 3, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&O, finding in relevant part "good cause to replace QME, Michael Bronshvag, M.D., with Scott T. Anderson, M.D., who I will appoint as a regular physician pursuant to section 5701, to succeed him with respect to evaluation and reporting on all the relevant internal medicine medical/legal issues posed by this case." (Finding of Fact No. 3.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5701; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 31.5(a)
Good cause to replace a QME under Labor Code section 5701 and Administrative Director Rule 31.5(a)
The WCJ and WCAB applied these standards to determine the appropriateness of replacing the QME and appointing a regular physician.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Bronshvag's failure to provide final substantive opinions and request for additional specialist input
From the decision · page 7The respective briefing and review of his reports (Joint 101), in my view makes clear that despite being provided with records, Dr. Bronshvag has failed to provide final substantive opinions on other issues including the hypertension claim. In short, I can understand both parties frustration with Dr. Bronshvag's reporting and deposition testimony in this case. While replacing him at this point will obviously take additional time, after much thought and consideration, I find and conclude that despite defense counsel's hopeful assertions to the contrary, I think the likely pattern based on past experience, and the specific facts of this case, is that replacement of Dr. Bronshvag is warranted, in order to expedite the resolution of this case.
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.