What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; prior decision rescinded and matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the July 29, 2025 Findings of Fact and Discovery Order, which found defendant waived entitlement to a QME panel by previously seeking the opinion of the AME. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings.
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 defendant waived entitlement to a QME panel by previously seeking the opinion of the AME, but the WCAB found the record was inadequate and rescinded the decision, remanding for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Discovery Order (F&O) issued on July 29, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that Scott Graham, M.D., is the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for both ADJ18724961 and ADJ15255319 and that defendant waived entitlement to a medical-legal examination via a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) selected from Panel #7803054 for the cumulative injury by previously seeking the opinion of the AME.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record was incomplete, lacking stipulations, issues, or exhibits in the minutes of hearing or submitted on the record.
Favours neutral
The inadequacy of the record prevented the WCAB from considering the merits and led to remand.
From the decision · page 6Here the Minutes lack the required components. The parties agreed to submit the issue on "applicant's DOR for discovery order barring additional QME." The specific issue is not outlined. There are no stipulations, issues, or exhibits outlined in the minutes of hearing or submitted on the record. While the exhibits are outlined and admitted in the F&O, the regulations clearly require a listing of all evidence received for identification or in evidence in the minutes of hearing and summary of evidence and not for the first time in the F&O.
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.
Dr. Graham served as the AME for both cases; the WCJ found his selection waived entitlement to a QME panel, but the WCAB rescinded the decision due to an inadequate record.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Graham's role as AME in both cases to find waiver, but the WCAB found the record incomplete and remanded.
From the decision · page 2Following submission for decision, Findings of Fact and Discovery Order issued on July 29, 2025. Applicant's motion to invalidate Panel 7803054 and excuse her from attending any Qualified Medical Evaluation drawn from the panel was granted. Findings of Fact and Discovery Order 7/29/2025 p. 3 (Discovery Order). The undersigned PWCJ found that Dr. Graham was serving as an Agreed Medical Evaluator in both cases and his selection in the present case waived any entitlement to a panel QME evaluation. The undersigned PWCJ relied on substantial evidence in the form of Petitioners' examination letter. Findings of Fact and Discovery Order 7/29/2025 pp. 2-3 (Findings of Fact #6 & #7, p. 4 (Opinion on Decision).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code § 4062.2(f)
A QME panel shall not be requested on any issue that has been agreed to be submitted to or has been submitted to an AME unless the agreement has been canceled by mutual written consent.
The WCJ applied this standard to find waiver, but the WCAB found the record inadequate and remanded.
From the decision · page 7IV We turn briefly to the substance of the party's arguments based on the pleadings. Defendant argues that pursuant to Navarro, supra, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 418, they are entitled to a new panel when a new claim form is filed after the initial AME evaluation. Section 4062.2 dictates how an evaluator will be selected to a resolve any dispute arising out of an injury or a claimed injury. At the outset, the parties opted to forego use of the panel system outlined in section 4062.2(b) opting to utilize the AME process outlined in section 4062.2(f). This section provides: (f) The parties may agree to an agreed medical evaluator at any time, except as to issues subject to the independent medical review process established pursuant to Section 4610.5. A panel shall not be requested pursuant to subdivision (b) on any issue that has been agreed to be submitted to or has been submitted to an agreed medical evaluator unless the agreement has been canceled by mutual written consent. (emphasis added)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The record lacked required components such as stipulations, issues, or exhibits in the minutes of hearing or submitted on the record, making it inadequate for decision.
From the decision · page 6Here the Minutes lack the required components. The parties agreed to submit the issue on "applicant's DOR for discovery order barring additional QME." The specific issue is not outlined. There are no stipulations, issues, or exhibits outlined in the minutes of hearing or submitted on the record. While the exhibits are outlined and admitted in the F&O, the regulations clearly require a listing of all evidence received for identification or in evidence in the minutes of hearing and summary of evidence and not for the first time in the F&O.
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.