ADJ15951487 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal/reconsideration denied; order replacing PQME Dr. Wiseman affirmed.

Defendant petitioned for removal/reconsideration of the WCJ's order replacing PQME Dr. Wiseman for improper service of his report; the WCAB reviewed and denied the petition.

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 processApplicant prevailed

PQME Dr. Wiseman failed to serve his report on all parties within the statutory timeframe, constituting a violation of 8 CCR 36 and Labor Code requirements; this defect was not cured by later service by defense counsel. The integrity of the process and neutrality of the QME require concurrent service on all parties.

From the decision · page 8From the evidence available, it appears PQME Dr. Wiseman did not complete the formal medical evaluation. PQME Dr. Wiseman did not prepare and serve the comprehensive medical- legal evaluation report on the injured worker, his attorney, the claims administrator or the employer, within thirty days of seeing the applicant. Instead, PQME Dr. Wiseman only served the report on the insurance carrier with a proof of service on The Hartford Syracuse for a Kentucky post office box, mailed date August 6, 2024, from Los Angeles. (Joint Exhibit 1, PQME Dr. Wiseman, PDF page 51.) Such service is on its face is defective. As stated by the WCJ in the Report:

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code §§ 4062.5, 139.2(j)(1); Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514 (en banc)

A party may seek to replace a QME under section 4062.5 where an evaluation takes place and the report prepared from that evaluation is untimely served on all parties.

PQME Dr. Wiseman failed to serve his report on all parties within the statutory timeframe, justifying replacement.

From the decision · page 7(Vazquez, supra, at pages 522-523.) Section 4062.5 provides that "[i]f a qualified medical evaluator selected from a panel fails to complete the formal medical evaluation within the timeframes established by the administrative director pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 139.2, a new evaluation may be obtained upon the request of either party." Section 139.2 specifically authorizes the administrative director (AD) to adopt regulations concerning the "[s]tandards governing the timeframes within which medical evaluations shall be prepared and submitted by agreed and qualified medical evaluators. Except as provided in this subdivision, the timeframe for initial medical evaluations to be prepared and submitted shall be no more than 30 days after the evaluator has seen the employee or otherwise commenced the medical evaluation procedure." (Lab. Code, § 139.2(j)(1)(A).) "[W]hen sections 4062.5 and 139.2(j)(1) are read together, a party's statutory right to seek replacement of a QME in represented cases arises when the QME fails to timely issue a report following a medical evaluation." (Vazquez, supra, page 523, emphasis in original.)

8 CCR 36

8 CCR 36 requires QME to concurrently serve the report on all necessary parties to ensure neutrality and integrity of the process.

PQME Dr. Wiseman's failure to serve all parties rendered his report defective and justified replacement.

From the decision · page 8Here, although defendant eventually served a copy of the report on applicant's attorney, this does not cure the QME's violation of 8 CCR 36. 8 CCR 36 ensures the appearance of disinterest and neutrality on the part of the QME and affords each party the same opportunity to respond to a report as it arrives. Thus, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it is imperative that the QME concurrently serves the report on all necessary parties. The failure to serve all parties and the QME's use of an unlisted address for defendant casts a shadow upon the QME's report and gives rise to questions regarding the integrity of the process.

ADJ15951487 · August 25, 2025

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