What the panel ordered
Denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration to remove the replacement QME panel and Dr. Agyeman as the orthopedic surgery QME.
Petition for removal of the WCJ's Joint Findings of Fact and Order issued January 12, 2026, seeking to remove the replacement QME panel and orthopedic surgery QME Dr. Agyeman.
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 WCJ and Appeals Board found that the applicant validly requested a replacement QME panel due to Dr. Willoughby's unavailability to schedule within 120 days, and that the replacement panel and Dr. Agyeman as QME were properly appointed.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on January 12, 2026 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&O found, in pertinent part, that applicant validly requested a Replacement QME Panel on March 5, 2025 (to replace panel number 3593170). The WCJ ordered that replacement QME panel number 3622506 replace panel number 3593170, leaving, after the striking process previously performed by the parties, Kofi D. Agyeman, M.D., as the orthopedic surgery QME in these matters.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Willoughby definitively and unequivocally indicated he could not see applicant for over 120 days.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact justified the applicant's right to request a replacement QME panel, which was upheld by the WCJ and Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 8As stated by the WCJ in his Report, "Once Dr. Willoughby definitively and unequivocally indicated he could not see Applicant for over 120 days, Applicant relied on that information and properly exercised his right to request a new panel." (Report, at p. 13.) We agree.
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.
Found to be the valid orthopedic surgery QME after replacement panel process.
The WCJ and Appeals Board relied on the finding that Dr. Agyeman was properly appointed as the orthopedic surgery QME after the replacement panel was validly requested.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on January 12, 2026 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The F&O found, in pertinent part, that applicant validly requested a Replacement QME Panel on March 5, 2025 (to replace panel number 3593170). The WCJ ordered that replacement QME panel number 3622506 replace panel number 3593170, leaving, after the striking process previously performed by the parties, Kofi D. Agyeman, M.D., as the orthopedic surgery QME in these matters.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514
Only the Appeals Board has jurisdiction to determine whether a replacement panel is valid or otherwise appropriate.
The Appeals Board applied this standard to affirm the WCJ's decision to grant a replacement QME panel due to unavailability of the original QME.
From the decision · page 6III. In Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514, 523 (Appeals Board en banc), we held that:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Email from Dr. Willoughby stating no available appointments within 120 days and requiring a waiver to proceed.
From the decision · page 2Our office received your request to schedule a P-QME appointment. This doctor's schedule is completely booked within the 120 day timeframe allowed by the Division of Workers' Compensation for first-time and subsequent P-QME appointments.
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.