ADJ13002614 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Applicant seeks reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Order issued on October 1, 2025, which found injury AOE/COE and addressed QME panel selection issues.

Read the official decision →

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

The WCJ found the applicant's selection of Dr. Tahami premature because the striking period for the QME panel started anew on December 6, 2024, and had not expired by December 9, 2024, when the applicant selected Dr. Tahami.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative, removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 1, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on January 11, 2020 as a rental leasing consultant, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and psyche. The WCJ further held that panel 3448334 is valid; applicant's December 9, 2024 selection of Hosein Tahami, D.O. as the psyche panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) from said panel was premature; the parties April 3, 2024 agreement to continue use of Jeffrey Gould, M.D. as the psyche PQME was in effect until its termination on December 6, 2024; and the time frame during which the parties were to commence the striking process for panel number 3448334 was October 1, 2025--the date of service of the F&O.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Documentary evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's Exhibit 9 showing contact with QME offices in April 2024 indicating only Dr. Tahami performed in-person evaluations.

From the decision · page 7We disagree. As stated by the WCJ in his Report: I am also not persuaded by applicant's contention that she will be prejudiced because my decision will necessarily result in the need for another replacement panel. Applicant based this assertion on contact with the three providers on QME panel number 3448334 indicating that only Dr. Tahami performs in person evaluations. This is based on Applicant's Exhibit 9 which contains notes from contact with the three doctors' offices in April 2024 that only Dr. Tahami was scheduling in-person evaluations. That may still be the case, but I am not persuaded that contact with the QMEs' offices 15 months prior to the trial date is sufficient evidence to establish that Dr. Dutta and Dr. Stahl continue to only do evaluations via telehealth. Additionally, filing a petition for removal does not represent a path to a more expeditious evaluation than striking providers and requesting another replacement panel if needed. It would appear then that the goal in disputing the 10/1/2025 Findings & Order is not an expeditious evaluation of the applicant, but rather that Dr. Tahami serve as the QME in this matter. Therefore, I do not find that applicant has established that a further replacement panel is required, or the existence of the accompanying substantial prejudice the applicant alleges would result.

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

Lack of evidence that Dr. Dutta and Dr. Stahl continued to only do telehealth evaluations 15 months later.

From the decision · page 7We disagree. As stated by the WCJ in his Report: I am also not persuaded by applicant's contention that she will be prejudiced because my decision will necessarily result in the need for another replacement panel. Applicant based this assertion on contact with the three providers on QME panel number 3448334 indicating that only Dr. Tahami performs in person evaluations. This is based on Applicant's Exhibit 9 which contains notes from contact with the three doctors' offices in April 2024 that only Dr. Tahami was scheduling in-person evaluations. That may still be the case, but I am not persuaded that contact with the QMEs' offices 15 months prior to the trial date is sufficient evidence to establish that Dr. Dutta and Dr. Stahl continue to only do evaluations via telehealth. Additionally, filing a petition for removal does not represent a path to a more expeditious evaluation than striking providers and requesting another replacement panel if needed. It would appear then that the goal in disputing the 10/1/2025 Findings & Order is not an expeditious evaluation of the applicant, but rather that Dr. Tahami serve as the QME in this matter. Therefore, I do not find that applicant has established that a further replacement panel is required, or the existence of the accompanying substantial prejudice the applicant alleges would result.

ADJ13002614 · January 5, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page