California WCABPanel decision

ADJ11426237 · March 5, 2026

Decision of December 5, 2025 affirmed except amended to deny replacement QME panel

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 2
Authorities named: 2
District office: Lodi

What the panel ordered

Decision of December 5, 2025 affirmed except amended to deny replacement QME panel

Petition for reconsideration granted; decision after reconsideration issued

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.

QME/AME processDeferredneurology

The issue of whether a QME reevaluation is necessary is deferred due to lack of notice and incomplete evidence.

From the decision · page 102. The issue of whether a QME reevaluation in neurology is needed after the parties' receipt of the reports of James Shaw, MD, dated June 4, 2025, and Robert Posten, Ph.D., dated August 19, 2025, is deferred.

QME/AME processDefendant prevailedneurology

The evidentiary record does not establish medical limitations precluding travel to the QME's new office location, so replacement panel is not warranted.

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant's credible testimony establishes travel limitations but does not medically preclude travel to QME's new office

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supports denial of replacement QME panel as travel is possible despite inconvenience

From the decision · page 84:1), the evidentiary record does not establish medical limitations or other facts or circumstances that would preclude a reevaluation with the current QME. Moreover, applicant's testimony appears to support his ability, "depending on how far he has to go," to engage in air travel and navigate "getting to the airport and through security." (Id. at p. 4:11.) Thus, based on the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that the current record warrants the issuance of a replacement panel of QMEs in neurology. We will grant defendant's Petition and amend the Findings of Fact, accordingly.

No medical evidence contraindicates travel to the QME's new office location

Favours Defendant prevailed

No medical basis to justify replacement panel; statutory mandate to use same QME prevails

From the decision · page 84:1), the evidentiary record does not establish medical limitations or other facts or circumstances that would preclude a reevaluation with the current QME. Moreover, applicant's testimony appears to support his ability, "depending on how far he has to go," to engage in air travel and navigate "getting to the airport and through security." (Id. at p. 4:11.) Thus, based on the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that the current record warrants the issuance of a replacement panel of QMEs in neurology. We will grant defendant's Petition and amend the Findings of Fact, accordingly.

Issue of necessity of QME reevaluation deferred due to lack of notice and incomplete evidence

Favours neutral

Preserves due process and allows further development of record

From the decision · page 102. The issue of whether a QME reevaluation in neurology is needed after the parties' receipt of the reports of James Shaw, MD, dated June 4, 2025, and Robert Posten, Ph.D., dated August 19, 2025, is deferred.

ADJ11426237 · March 5, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page