What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's Joint Findings of Fact and Order, and denied the applicant's request for a replacement QME panel in psychiatry.
Defendant sought removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order issued by the WCJ on September 20, 2021, which found impermissible ex parte communication by the QME and ordered a replacement panel in psychiatry. The WCJ recommended denying the removal petition. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the Joint F&O, and denied the replacement panel request.
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 QME's telephone calls were made with applicant's permission and were in connection with the examination, thus not impermissible ex parte communication under Labor Code section 4062.3(i). There was no basis to strike the QME or order a replacement panel.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (Joint F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 20, 2021.1 By the Joint F&O, the WCJ found that the post-examination telephone calls of the panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) with applicant were an impermissible ex parte communication. The WCJ ordered the Medical Unit to issue a replacement panel in psychiatry.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Stanford made follow-up phone calls to applicant after the examination with her permission to clarify medical record issues relevant to the psychiatric injury claim.
Favours Defendant prevailed
These calls were found to be in connection with the examination and permissible under Labor Code section 4062.3(i), leading to denial of the replacement panel request.
From the decision · page 2A QME panel in psychiatry was obtained and Donald Stanford, M.D. was the selected physician from this panel. Dr. Stanford evaluated applicant in April 2020. (Applicant's Exhibit No. 1, Report of PQME Donald Stanford, M.D., May 11, 2020, p. 1.) In his report, Dr. Stanford relayed the following as relevant herein:
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. Stanford conducted a psychiatric QME evaluation and made follow-up phone calls to applicant with her permission to clarify medical record issues relevant to the psychiatric injury claim. The WCAB found these calls were permissible and not impermissible ex parte communications.
The calls were made with applicant's permission and were in connection with the examination, consistent with Labor Code section 4062.3(i).
From the decision · page 2A QME panel in psychiatry was obtained and Donald Stanford, M.D. was the selected physician from this panel. Dr. Stanford evaluated applicant in April 2020. (Applicant's Exhibit No. 1, Report of PQME Donald Stanford, M.D., May 11, 2020, p. 1.) In his report, Dr. Stanford relayed the following as relevant herein:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4062.3(i); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 35(k); Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 575; Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803
Ex parte communication with a QME is prohibited except for communications by the employee in the course of or in connection with the examination under Labor Code section 4062.3(i).
The WCAB applied these standards to determine that the QME's post-examination phone calls with applicant were permissible and did not constitute impermissible ex parte communication.
From the decision · page 5The Appeals Board shall retain jurisdiction in all cases to determine disputes arising from objections and whether ex parte contact in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3 or this section of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations has occurred. If any party communicates with an evaluator in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3, the Medical Director shall provide the aggrieved party with a new panel in which to select a new QME or the aggrieved party may elect to proceed with the original evaluator. Oral or written communications by the employee, or if the employee is deceased by the employee's dependent, made in the course of the examination or made at the request of the evaluator in connection with the examination shall not provide grounds for a new evaluator
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Stanford's testimony that the calls were made with applicant's permission, were related to clarifying medical records, and were not made at night.
From the decision · page 3Dr. Stanford also testified at trial as follows:
Applicant's testimony that the QME made multiple phone calls after the examination, some in the evening, which she found harassing and inappropriate.
From the decision · page 2The only further contact she had with the doctor was when he called. She estimated four calls, not including messages. He left three to four messages, in addition to the phone calls. Two of the calls were in the evening, two late afternoon. The doctor never said what he wanted in the messages, just asking if
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.