What the panel ordered
The WCAB panel granted the Petition for Reconsideration, found panel 7799274 invalid, amended the June 19, 2025 Findings and Order, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
Petition for Reconsideration of the June 19, 2025 Findings and Order was granted by the WCAB panel, amending the prior order and 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.
Defendant's request for panel 7799274 was premature as it was made before 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025, violating Labor Code section 4062.2(b) and related regulations, rendering the panel invalid.
From the decision · page 6Thus, based upon the evidence presented, defendant's request was premature, in violation of section 4062.2(b), and invalid.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant requested panel 7799274 prior to 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025, before the earliest allowed time under Labor Code section 4062.2(b).
Favours Applicant prevailed
This premature request violated the statutory timing requirement, rendering the panel invalid and favoring the applicant's position.
From the decision · page 6Defendant made their panel request prior to 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025, and the Medical Unit issued panel 7799274 on April 3, 2025, in response to defendant's request. (Ex. 4, pp. 1-6.) On April 3, 2025, after 5:00 pm., the Medical Unit rejected applicant's request for a panel, stating that a panel with the same claim number, date of injury, and injured worker name had already issued and therefore applicant was ineligible for an additional QME panel. (Ex. 6, pp. 1-6.)
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.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) of June 19, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) ordered that panel number 7799274 remained as the panel in the matter. Applicant contends that panel 7799274 in the specialty of orthopedic surgery is invalid as defendant's request for the panel was premature.
From the decision · page 1FACTS Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her head, back, and left elbow while working for defendant as a laborer on November 11, 2024. Dr. Randal Roberts, D.C., filed a Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness report on March 10, 2025. In a letter of March 18, 2025, defendant objected to the opinion of Dr. Roberts and instead proposed using Dr. David Kim as the agreed medical evaluator (AME).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4062.2(b)
Sets timing requirements for requesting a PQME panel.
California Code of Regulations
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 30(b)(2)
Defines timing rules for panel requests made after business hours or on weekends/holidays.
From the decision · page 5Requests may be made twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. For determining the timeliness of requests under Labor Code section 4062.2, requests made on Saturday, Sunday or a holiday will be deemed to have been made at 8:00 a.m. on the next business day. Requests made Monday through Friday after 5:00 p.m. and before 12:00 a.m. will be deemed to have been made at 8:00 a.m. on the next business day, and requests made between 12:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. will be deemed to have been made at 8:00 a.m. on the same business day.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant's objection letter served on March 19, 2025, requiring a 15-day wait before requesting a PQME panel.
From the decision · page 5email on March 19, 2025, within California. (Ex. 2, p. 1.) Therefore, the parties were required to
Timing rules for panel requests under Labor Code section 4062.2 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 30(b)(2) requiring requests after 5:00 pm on April 3, 2025.
From the decision · page 5(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30(b)(2).) Therefore, the earliest a request for a PQME could be made
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.