ADJ20165742 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the April 29, 2025 F&O, and substituted new findings that panel number 7773036 is invalid and panel number 7775940 is valid.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) by the WCJ, challenging the validity of QME panel number 7773036 obtained by defendant using an incorrect claim number. The WCJ had found the panel valid. The WCAB treated the petition as one seeking reconsideration and applied the removal standard.

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

The Appeals Board found that the omission of the final digit in the claim number by defendant rendered the QME panel number 7773036 invalid, requiring strict compliance with AD Rule 30 for claim numbers to ensure due process and avoid conflicting panels.

From the decision · page 9Accordingly, we will treat applicant's petition as one seeking reconsideration, and applying the removal standard, grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, and substitute new findings of fact that panel 7773036 is invalid and that panel number 7775940 is valid.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code 5900(a), 5902, 5903

Petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory decisions are reviewed under removal standard.

The WCAB applied the removal standard to the interlocutory issue of QME panel validity.

From the decision · page 3I. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final'"]; Rymer, supra, at p.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 30

Parties must strictly comply with AD Rule 30 requirements for QME panel requests, including providing a complete and correct claim number.

The Appeals Board emphasized strict compliance with AD Rule 30 to ensure due process and avoid conflicting QME panels.

From the decision · page 8In sum, we believe that the better course is to require that parties strictly comply with the requirement in AD Rule 30 to provide a complete and correct claim number in making a request, rather than weighing and adjudging the individual facts and equity surrounding each incorrectly listed claim number in a QME panel dispute. In so doing, we seek to avoid the dangers of inconsistent outcomes, provide clarity to parties with respect to applicable minimum standards in requesting a QME panel, and allow parties to more easily predict whether a particular panel is valid without the need to seek intervention at the WCAB.

ADJ20165742 · July 18, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page