CompFox AI Summary
The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to replace a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued the QME violated Administrative Director Rule 34(b) by scheduling an exam at an unlisted address. However, the Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal. The Board agreed with the WCJ's finding that the objection appeared to be an attempt at "doctor shopping" and gamesmanship, contrary to the policy of substantial justice.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to replace a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued the QME violated Administrative Director Rule 34(b) by scheduling an exam at an unlisted address. However, the Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal. The Board agreed with the WCJ's finding that the objection appeared to be an attempt at "doctor shopping" and gamesmanship, contrary to the policy of substantial justice.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.