What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's April 30, 2026 Findings and Order replaced with new order finding no good cause to replace Dr. Saadat as PQME.p. 9
Petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's April 30, 2026 Findings and Order replacing Dr. Saadat as PQME due to failure to provide an evaluation date within 90 days.
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 defendant did not establish good cause for replacement of Dr. Saadat as PQME, considering the length of delay, prejudice to applicant, efforts to remedy availability, and constitutional mandate for substantial justice.
From the decision · page 6Turning now to the merits of the Petition, applicant contends that the WCJ did not adequately weigh the prejudice caused to applicant by restarting the QME process and that substantial justice requires that Dr. Saadat remain as the PQME in this matter. Applicant further contends that the WCJ did not properly analyze the elements set forth in Vazquez. In Vazquez, we held that for represented cases, “the determination of whether a QME should be replaced due to unavailability to set an evaluation is within the discretionary power of the Appeals Board, and a PQME may be replaced where a party demonstrates good cause for the replacement.” (Id. at p. 523.) Under Vazquez, good cause is determined based upon a balancing of multiple factors, which include: a. The length of delay caused by the QME's unavailability.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Saadat provided initial evaluation and multiple reports, including deposition testimony, establishing injury AOE/COE to cervical and lumbar spine.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This prior work made replacement prejudicial to applicant as it would restart the medical-legal process and potentially reverse established findings.
From the decision · page 8Saadat’s opinions would therefore be extremely prejudicial, particularly in comparison to a delay of 23 days. With respect to the third factor, whether any efforts were made to remedy the QME’s availability— as the scheduling party, defendant does not appear to have made any attempts to remedy the QME’s availability by requesting an earlier appointment, asking for applicant to be added to a waitlist, or making other similar efforts for the scheduling of a speedier reevaluation. With respect to the fourth factor—specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current QME—as noted above, Dr. Saadat has already found injury AOE/COE to the cervical and lumber spine (Exhibit 4, p. 10) and has issued numerous reports in this case (Exhibits 2-4). Dr. Saadat was also deposed by the parties (Exhibit 1). Dr.
Defendant did not attempt to schedule an earlier reevaluation or seek waitlist placement to remedy delay.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of efforts to remedy availability weighed against good cause for replacement, favoring applicant.
From the decision · page 8Saadat’s opinions would therefore be extremely prejudicial, particularly in comparison to a delay of 23 days. With respect to the third factor, whether any efforts were made to remedy the QME’s availability— as the scheduling party, defendant does not appear to have made any attempts to remedy the QME’s availability by requesting an earlier appointment, asking for applicant to be added to a waitlist, or making other similar efforts for the scheduling of a speedier reevaluation. With respect to the fourth factor—specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current QME—as noted above, Dr. Saadat has already found injury AOE/COE to the cervical and lumber spine (Exhibit 4, p. 10) and has issued numerous reports in this case (Exhibits 2-4). Dr. Saadat was also deposed by the parties (Exhibit 1). Dr.
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.
Selected as replacement PQME after Dr. Saadat was initially replaced by WCJ for failure to provide evaluation date within 90 days.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration, of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on April 30, 2026 wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that Ehsan Saadat, M.D. shall be replaced as the orthopedic Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) in this case due to his failure to provide an evaluation date within ninety (90) days pursuant to Administrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5(e) 2 and ordered that the parties continue with panel 3793035 and Michael Klassen, M.D. as the replacement PQME. Applicant contends that substantial justice requires that Dr. Saadat remain as the PQME in this matter as the WCJ did not adequately weigh the prejudice caused by restarting the QME process and misapplied elements from the case of Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514 (Appeals Bd. en banc).
Found injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the cervical and lumbar spine; issued multiple reports and was deposed.
The Board relied on Dr. Saadat's prior findings and reports to conclude that replacement would be prejudicial to the applicant.
From the decision · page 8Saadat’s opinions would therefore be extremely prejudicial, particularly in comparison to a delay of 23 days. With respect to the third factor, whether any efforts were made to remedy the QME’s availability— as the scheduling party, defendant does not appear to have made any attempts to remedy the QME’s availability by requesting an earlier appointment, asking for applicant to be added to a waitlist, or making other similar efforts for the scheduling of a speedier reevaluation. With respect to the fourth factor—specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current QME—as noted above, Dr. Saadat has already found injury AOE/COE to the cervical and lumber spine (Exhibit 4, p. 10) and has issued numerous reports in this case (Exhibits 2-4). Dr. Saadat was also deposed by the parties (Exhibit 1). Dr.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 31.3(e) and § 31.5(a)(2)
AD Rule 31.3(e) and 31.5(a)(2) regarding QME replacement due to unavailability within 90 days
The rules provide entitlement to replacement panels for initial evaluations unable to be scheduled within 90 days, but here the issue was a reevaluation appointment delay.
From the decision · page 7limit, defendant is entitled to request a new panel under AD Rules 31.3(e) and 31.5(a)(2). (See Exhibit A.) AD Rule 31.3(e) states, in relevant part, that: If a party with the legal right to schedule an appointment with a QME is unable to obtain an appointment with a selected QME within ninety (90) days of the date of the appointment request, that party may waive the right to a replacement in order to accept an appointment no more than one-hundred-twenty (120) days after the date of the party's initial request for an appointment. When the selected QME is unable to schedule the evaluation within one-hundred-twenty (120) days of the date of that party's initial request for an appointment, either party may report the unavailability of the QME and the Medical Director shall issue a replacement pursuant to section 31.5 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations upon request, unless both parties agree in writing to waive the one-hundred-twenty (120) day time limit for scheduling the initial or any subsequent evaluation.
Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514 (Appeals Bd. en banc)
Good cause balancing test for QME replacement from Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514 (Appeals Bd. en banc)
The Board applied the five-factor balancing test to determine good cause for replacement of the PQME.
From the decision · page 6Turning now to the merits of the Petition, applicant contends that the WCJ did not adequately weigh the prejudice caused to applicant by restarting the QME process and that substantial justice requires that Dr. Saadat remain as the PQME in this matter. Applicant further contends that the WCJ did not properly analyze the elements set forth in Vazquez. In Vazquez, we held that for represented cases, “the determination of whether a QME should be replaced due to unavailability to set an evaluation is within the discretionary power of the Appeals Board, and a PQME may be replaced where a party demonstrates good cause for the replacement.” (Id. at p. 523.) Under Vazquez, good cause is determined based upon a balancing of multiple factors, which include: a. The length of delay caused by the QME's unavailability.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Saadat's prior reports and deposition establishing injury AOE/COE to cervical and lumbar spine
From the decision · page 8Saadat’s opinions would therefore be extremely prejudicial, particularly in comparison to a delay of 23 days. With respect to the third factor, whether any efforts were made to remedy the QME’s availability— as the scheduling party, defendant does not appear to have made any attempts to remedy the QME’s availability by requesting an earlier appointment, asking for applicant to be added to a waitlist, or making other similar efforts for the scheduling of a speedier reevaluation. With respect to the fourth factor—specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current QME—as noted above, Dr. Saadat has already found injury AOE/COE to the cervical and lumber spine (Exhibit 4, p. 10) and has issued numerous reports in this case (Exhibits 2-4). Dr. Saadat was also deposed by the parties (Exhibit 1). Dr.
Defendant did not make efforts to schedule an earlier reevaluation or seek waitlist placement
From the decision · page 8Saadat’s opinions would therefore be extremely prejudicial, particularly in comparison to a delay of 23 days. With respect to the third factor, whether any efforts were made to remedy the QME’s availability— as the scheduling party, defendant does not appear to have made any attempts to remedy the QME’s availability by requesting an earlier appointment, asking for applicant to be added to a waitlist, or making other similar efforts for the scheduling of a speedier reevaluation. With respect to the fourth factor—specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current QME—as noted above, Dr. Saadat has already found injury AOE/COE to the cervical and lumber spine (Exhibit 4, p. 10) and has issued numerous reports in this case (Exhibits 2-4). Dr. Saadat was also deposed by the parties (Exhibit 1). Dr.
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.