What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted solely to amend the Findings and Order to admit applicant's exhibit number 3 into evidence; otherwise, the WCJ's decision is affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on January 14, 2022, challenging the denial of entitlement to a replacement QME panel.
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 prevailedpsyche · bilateral upper extremities · bilateral hands and fingers
Defendant failed to show entitlement to a replacement QME panel under any applicable regulation, including AD Rule 31.5 and AD Rule 46.2, and the WCJ properly admitted applicant's exhibit 3 into evidence despite defendant's objections.
From the decision · page 9AD Rule 31.5(a) enumerates 16 circumstances under which a party may request a replacement QME panel. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 31.5(a).) Defendant has not shown entitlement to a replacement QME panel pursuant to any of the circumstances outlined in AD Rule 31.5. Thus, the WCJ correctly found that defendant is not entitled to a replacement panel.