What the panel ordered
The April 12, 2024 Findings of Fact and Orders is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's order denying a replacement QME panel and maintaining Dr. Campos as PQME; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and now rescinds the WCJ's order, remanding for further proceedings.
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 Appeals Board found that the re-evaluation was scheduled over 120 days from the initial request, in violation of AD Rules 31.3(e) and 31.5(a)(2), and remanded for the WCJ to consider whether good cause exists to replace the QME due to unavailability, as required by Vazquez.
From the decision · page 6a. The length of delay caused by the QME's unavailability. b. The amount of prejudice caused by the delay in availability versus the amount of prejudice caused by restarting the QME process. c. What efforts, if any, have been made to remedy the QME's availability. d. Case specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current QME, including whether a party may have waived its objection. e. The Appeals Board's constitutional mandate to "accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) (Vazquez, supra, at p. 527.) Defendant first requested the re-evaluation by Dr, Campos on August 22, 2023 (Ex. A), which was after the February 2, 2023 change in regulations. It did so again on September 21, 2023, and September 28, 2023, before QME Campos provided the appointment date of February 4, 2024, on September 28, 2023. (Exs. B, C, E.) The re-evaluation was scheduled over 120 days from the initial request in violation of AD Rules 31.3(e) and 31.5(a)(2). Thus, the WCJ should consider whether there was good cause pursuant to Vazquez to replace the QME due to unavailability. Therefore, we rescind the F&O and return this matter to the WCJ for consideration of whether good exists to order a replacement QME panel.