What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal deniedp. 5
Defendant petitioned for removal of WCJ's Findings and Orders of April 19, 2022, which found the PQME panel valid and designated Dr. Curran as the PQME.
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.
Applicant had not signed a fee agreement with counsel at time of panel request; therefore unrepresented track under section 4062.1 was proper and defendant not entitled to strike a name.
From the decision · page 3The crux of defendant’s argument is that the applicant should have been required to use the represented track pursuant to section 4062.2, which allows the defendant to strike one name from the panel, instead of the unrepresented track in section 4062.1, which allows the applicant to select the PQME. We find no merit to defendant’s argument.