CompFox AI Summary
This case involved a defendant's petition for removal seeking a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to alleged delays. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that Labor Code section 4062.5 and related regulations do not mandate a new QME for untimely supplemental reports. Specifically, regulations address timeframes for initial evaluations, not supplemental ones, and the failure to meet supplemental report deadlines does not necessitate a new QME. Therefore, the WCJ's denial of the defendant's motion was not an abuse of discretion.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involved a defendant's petition for removal seeking a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to alleged delays. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that Labor Code section 4062.5 and related regulations do not mandate a new QME for untimely supplemental reports. Specifically, regulations address timeframes for initial evaluations, not supplemental ones, and the failure to meet supplemental report deadlines does not necessitate a new QME. Therefore, the WCJ's denial of the defendant's motion was not an abuse of discretion.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.