ADJ13486537 · August 21, 2026

The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in denying replacement of the PQME and sanctions, granting reconsideration to further review the merits and record.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Finding(s), Order(s) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 11, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that “[t]here is no good cause at this time to order a replacement panel…” and that “defendant has not acted in bad faith to warrant sanctions at this time.” Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in failing to find defendant acted in bad faith in unilaterally cancelling the panel qualified medical reevaluation with Phillip Conwisar, M.D., and in failing to replace Dr. Conwisar as the panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME). Defendant filed an Answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant the Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after

Defendant canceled the November 2024 reevaluation appointment without applicant's knowledge, but the doctor was not unavailable and would have seen applicant if the appointment was not canceled.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact negated the claim that the PQME was unavailable and justified reconsideration of the replacement request.

From the decision · page 5The applicant was not aware of the cancelation and appeared in November 2024 but was turned away. This does not mean the PQME was “unavailable” either, so as to warrant a replacement. It just means the appointment was canceled, unfortunately unbeknownst to her. Had defendant agreed to the reevaluation, then the doctor would have seen her. Or rather, there is no evidence that the doctor would not have seen her if defendant hadn't canceled it. It was not the doctor’s doing. Therefore, the request to replace the PQME under the guise of “unavailability” is not proper here.

The history of extensive involvement of Dr. Conwisar as PQME since 2021 with multiple reports and deposition supports the reasonableness of not replacing him at this stage.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supports the Board's discretion to deny replacement as unreasonable to restart the process.

From the decision · page 64. Factual reasons to justify keeping or replacing the PQME: The history since 2021 in this case would reflect an extensive involvement with this particular PQME and to replace him and start over is unreasonable at this point, especially since he is not truly “unavailable” for a reevaluation.

Dr. Conwisar acted as the PQME since 2021, issued about 5 reports and at least one deposition; he was involved in the reevaluation scheduling and reports related to the cumulative trauma claim.

From the decision · page 4The relevant facts in this case are that Dr. Conwisar acted as the PQME in this case since 2021, with about 5 reports issuing and at least one deposition. The matter went to trial before the undersigned on March 30, 2026, and the Findings and Orders issued on May 11, 2026, whereby I found that the panel shall not be replaced for alleged misconduct, unavailability, and/or ex parte communications by defense counsel. …

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 31.5

Administrative Director Rule 31.5(a) enumerates 16 grounds for replacement of a QME panel.

The Board considered these grounds in evaluating the request to replace the PQME.

From the decision · page 7V. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: Administrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5(a) enumerates 16 circumstances under which a party may request a replacement QME panel. It states:

Lab. Code, § 5813(a)

The Appeals Board has discretion to order sanctions for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or intended to cause delay.

The Board reviewed the claim of bad faith cancellation and sanctions request.

From the decision · page 11In Suon, the Appeals Board opined that “[i]n contrast to the specific remedy provided by section 4062.3(g) for an ex parte communication, the Labor Code does not provide a specific remedy for a violation of section 4062.3(b).” (Suon, supra, 83 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1815.) The decision held that the trier of fact has wide discretion to determine the appropriate remedy for a violation of section 4062.3(b). (Id.) Moreover, pursuant to section 5813(a), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has the discretionary power to order the payment of sanctions for “bad-faith actions or tactics which are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Lab.

Applicant was unaware of the cancellation of the November 2024 reevaluation appointment and appeared but was turned away; no evidence doctor was unavailable; cancellation was by defendant's counsel.

From the decision · page 5The applicant was not aware of the cancelation and appeared in November 2024 but was turned away. This does not mean the PQME was “unavailable” either, so as to warrant a replacement. It just means the appointment was canceled, unfortunately unbeknownst to her. Had defendant agreed to the reevaluation, then the doctor would have seen her. Or rather, there is no evidence that the doctor would not have seen her if defendant hadn't canceled it. It was not the doctor’s doing. Therefore, the request to replace the PQME under the guise of “unavailability” is not proper here.