What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration issued on July 22, 2021
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 22, 2021.
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.
Petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
From the decision · page 3We are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Miller signed under penalty of perjury that he performed the review of records although he had not done so, violating Labor Code section 4628.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This violation justified striking his report and ordering a replacement QME panel to preserve the integrity of the medical-legal evaluation process.
From the decision · page 370 Cal.App.4th at p. 881.) In this matter, Dr. Miller repeatedly failed to comply with the requirements of section 4628 and signed under penalty of perjury that he performed the review of records although he had not done so. Preservation of the integrity of the medical-legal evaluation process is critical and the Legislature's express purpose in enacting section 4628 was to prevent precisely the type of report ghostwriting that occurred in this matter. Under the circumstances here, a replacement QME panel was warranted in order to preserve the integrity of the medical- legal evaluation process. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 31.5(a)(13), 41.5(d)(4); see also Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 575, 589 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 817] ["In a field that is dependent on expert medical opinions, the impartiality and appearance of impartiality of the panel qualified medical evaluator is critical"].)
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.
Repeatedly failed to comply with Labor Code section 4628 by signing under penalty of perjury that he performed a review of records when he had not done so, leading to the striking of his report and the need for a replacement QME panel.
Failure to comply with Labor Code section 4628 undermined the integrity of the medical-legal evaluation process and justified a replacement QME panel.
From the decision · page 2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, applicant is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision regarding whether a replacement qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must issue because the reporting of Lawrence Miller, M.D. was stricken for violation of Labor Code section 4628. (Lab. Code, § 4628.) Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Scheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868
Labor Code section 4628 as an anti-ghostwriting statute to ensure the reliability of medical evaluations by requiring the doctor who signed the report to have actually examined the injured worker and prepared the evaluation.
The statute was applied to strike Dr. Miller's report and justify a replacement QME panel to preserve the integrity of the medical-legal evaluation process.
From the decision · page 2Although the decision contains a finding that is final, applicant is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision regarding whether a replacement qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must issue because the reporting of Lawrence Miller, M.D. was stricken for violation of Labor Code section 4628. (Lab. Code, § 4628.) Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Miller repeatedly failed to comply with Labor Code section 4628 and signed under penalty of perjury that he performed the review of records although he had not done so.
From the decision · page 370 Cal.App.4th at p. 881.) In this matter, Dr. Miller repeatedly failed to comply with the requirements of section 4628 and signed under penalty of perjury that he performed the review of records although he had not done so. Preservation of the integrity of the medical-legal evaluation process is critical and the Legislature's express purpose in enacting section 4628 was to prevent precisely the type of report ghostwriting that occurred in this matter. Under the circumstances here, a replacement QME panel was warranted in order to preserve the integrity of the medical- legal evaluation process. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 31.5(a)(13), 41.5(d)(4); see also Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 575, 589 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 817] ["In a field that is dependent on expert medical opinions, the impartiality and appearance of impartiality of the panel qualified medical evaluator is critical"].)
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.