What the panel ordered
March 11, 2025 Findings and Order by WCJ rescinded; new finding that a QME strike may be exercised by timely notifying opposing counsel; matter returned to trial level.
Petition for removal from Findings and Order issued March 11, 2025, granted to decide issue of proper method of QME strike service.
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 Board found that Labor Code section 4062.2 requires only timely notification of opposing counsel to exercise a QME strike, not formal service by mail or electronic service rules.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that pursuant to AD Rule 10205.6(b), a strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must be made via first class mail, absent agreement of the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10205.6(b).) The WCJ found that WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2), does not apply to permit electronic service of a QME strike. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(2).)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant electronically served the QME strike by email on November 11, 2024.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This timely notification satisfied the requirement of Labor Code section 4062.2 for exercising a QME strike, making the strike valid despite not using first class mail.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's attorneys emailed on 11-11-2024 a response, striking Dr. Hyunwoo Kang from panel 7748773. Applicant's attorneys did NOT send their 11-11-2024 strike response by first class mail, but by email to the defense attorney's personal business email at the defense law firm. Please see Joint Exhibit X3.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10205.6(b)
A strike of a QME panel must be made via first class mail absent agreement of the parties (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10205.6(b)).
The WCJ found this rule conflicted with WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2) and did not permit electronic service of a QME strike.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that pursuant to AD Rule 10205.6(b), a strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must be made via first class mail, absent agreement of the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10205.6(b).) The WCJ found that WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2), does not apply to permit electronic service of a QME strike. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(2).)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10625(b)(2)
WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2) permits electronic service but does not apply to QME strike service.
The WCJ found this rule does not apply to QME strike service.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on March 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that pursuant to AD Rule 10205.6(b), a strike from a qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel must be made via first class mail, absent agreement of the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10205.6(b).) The WCJ found that WCAB Rule 10625(b)(2), does not apply to permit electronic service of a QME strike. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)(2).)
Lab. Code 4062.2
Labor Code section 4062.2 requires only timely notification of opposing counsel to exercise a QME strike.
The Board held that pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.2, a strike of a QME may be exercised by timely notifying opposing counsel of the strike, without formal service requirements.
From the decision · page 4Accordingly, we grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we rescind the March 11, 2025 F&O and substitute a new finding that pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.2, a strike of a QME may be exercised by timely notifying opposing counsel of the strike.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's timely email notification of QME strike on 11-11-2024.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's attorneys emailed on 11-11-2024 a response, striking Dr. Hyunwoo Kang from panel 7748773. Applicant's attorneys did NOT send their 11-11-2024 strike response by first class mail, but by email to the defense attorney's personal business email at the defense law firm. Please see Joint Exhibit X3.
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.