What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the Joint Findings and Order, and ordered an additional QME panel in neurology to evaluate the applicant's sleep issues.
Applicant sought removal of the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on September 8, 2021, challenging the denial of an additional QME panel in neurology for sleep disorder evaluation.
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 showed good cause for an additional QME panel in neurology to evaluate her sleep disorder, and the WCAB found that the absence of such a panel prevented necessary medical-legal discovery to meet the burden of proof for compensability.
From the decision · page 4Applicant has pled injury in the form of a sleep disorder. Defendant disputes compensability for this condition. Section 4062.2 governs the process to obtain a medical-legal evaluation from a panel QME in a represented case if the parties do not agree on an AME. (Lab. Code, § 4062.2.) In the absence of an additional panel in neurology, applicant is prevented from conducting necessary medical-legal discovery to meet her burden of proof to show compensability for her sleep disorder. We therefore agree with applicant that an additional QME panel in neurology is warranted. (See McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906 [the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues].)