What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ’s finding that applicant is entitled to a replacement QME panel reversed; applicant’s request for replacement QME panel deniedp. 1
Defendant’s Petition for Removal treated as Petition for Reconsideration; WCAB grants reconsideration and issues Decision After Reconsideration
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.
Applicant failed to demonstrate that the QME’s initial report was untimely served in violation of AD Rule 38; WCJ’s finding that the report was first served on or about July 18, 2023 is not supported by the mailbox rule
From the decision · page 1Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant defendant’s Petition as one seeking reconsideration and amend the F&O to find that applicant is not entitled to a replacement QME panel (Finding of Fact No. 9). Applicant’s request for a replacement QME panel will be ordered denied.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.