What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and ordered the parties to proceed with Dr. Patrick S. Hill as the QME from Panel #7719132.
Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Joint Findings and Order regarding the selection of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel and the timeliness of a strike from the 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.
The WCAB found that the applicant's strike of Dr. Viswanath was untimely, but since the defendant did not timely select a QME after that, the applicant had the right to schedule an appointment with Dr. Hill, making the applicant's scheduling proper.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of December 19, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant issued an untimely strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel and that it was therefore defendant's right to select a QME from the remaining names on the panel. It was thus found that "Applicant's scheduling of a QME appointment with Dr. Patrick S. Hill was improper" and that "The parties are to proceed with Dr. Purab C. Viswanath as the Qualified Medical Evaluator." In these matters, applicant claims in case ADJ19432813 that while employed on February 15, 2024, an industrial injury was sustained to the right ring finger. Additionally, applicant alleges that while employed during a cumulative period ending on March 16, 2024 in case ADJ19432814, applicant sustained industrial injury to the foot.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's strike of Dr. Viswanath was untimely.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This untimely strike initially gave defendant the right to select the QME, but defendant did not timely exercise this right.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of December 19, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant issued an untimely strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel and that it was therefore defendant's right to select a QME from the remaining names on the panel. It was thus found that "Applicant's scheduling of a QME appointment with Dr. Patrick S. Hill was improper" and that "The parties are to proceed with Dr. Purab C. Viswanath as the Qualified Medical Evaluator." In these matters, applicant claims in case ADJ19432813 that while employed on February 15, 2024, an industrial injury was sustained to the right ring finger. Additionally, applicant alleges that while employed during a cumulative period ending on March 16, 2024 in case ADJ19432814, applicant sustained industrial injury to the foot.
Defendant did not timely select a QME after applicant's untimely strike.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Because defendant did not timely select a QME, applicant had the right to schedule an appointment with Dr. Hill, making the scheduling proper.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of December 19, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant issued an untimely strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel and that it was therefore defendant's right to select a QME from the remaining names on the panel. It was thus found that "Applicant's scheduling of a QME appointment with Dr. Patrick S. Hill was improper" and that "The parties are to proceed with Dr. Purab C. Viswanath as the Qualified Medical Evaluator." In these matters, applicant claims in case ADJ19432813 that while employed on February 15, 2024, an industrial injury was sustained to the right ring finger. Additionally, applicant alleges that while employed during a cumulative period ending on March 16, 2024 in case ADJ19432814, applicant sustained industrial injury to the foot.
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.
Applicant's scheduling of the QME appointment with Dr. Hill was proper because defendant waived its right to select a QME after applicant's untimely strike and did not timely select a QME.
The WCAB found that defendant did not timely exercise its right to select a QME after applicant's untimely strike, so applicant's scheduling with Dr. Hill was proper.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of December 19, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant issued an untimely strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel and that it was therefore defendant's right to select a QME from the remaining names on the panel. It was thus found that "Applicant's scheduling of a QME appointment with Dr. Patrick S. Hill was improper" and that "The parties are to proceed with Dr. Purab C. Viswanath as the Qualified Medical Evaluator." In these matters, applicant claims in case ADJ19432813 that while employed on February 15, 2024, an industrial injury was sustained to the right ring finger. Additionally, applicant alleges that while employed during a cumulative period ending on March 16, 2024 in case ADJ19432814, applicant sustained industrial injury to the foot.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4062.2(c)
Labor Code section 4062.2(c) regarding the right to strike and select a QME from the panel.
The Board applied this statute to determine the timeliness of the strike and the right to select the QME.
From the decision · page 3Within 10 days of assignment of the panel by the administrative director, each party may strike one name from the panel. The remaining qualified medical evaluator shall serve as the medical evaluator. If a party fails to exercise the right to strike a name from the panel within 10 days of assignment of the panel by the administrative director, the other party may select any physician who remains on the panel to serve as the medical evaluator. The administrative director may prescribe the form, the manner, or both, by which the parties shall conduct the selection process.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 regarding the timing for the Appeals Board to act on petitions for reconsideration.
The Board applied this statute to confirm timely action on the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's strike of Dr. Viswanath was untimely, but defendant did not timely select a QME after that strike.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of December 19, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant issued an untimely strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel and that it was therefore defendant's right to select a QME from the remaining names on the panel. It was thus found that "Applicant's scheduling of a QME appointment with Dr. Patrick S. Hill was improper" and that "The parties are to proceed with Dr. Purab C. Viswanath as the Qualified Medical Evaluator." In these matters, applicant claims in case ADJ19432813 that while employed on February 15, 2024, an industrial injury was sustained to the right ring finger. Additionally, applicant alleges that while employed during a cumulative period ending on March 16, 2024 in case ADJ19432814, applicant sustained industrial injury to the foot.
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.