What the panel ordered
September 28, 2021 Minute Orders rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and new decision
Petition for reconsideration of WCJ's September 28, 2021 Minute Orders barring QME McCoy's report from replacement QME Ciepiela
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.
The WCJ's order barring the QME McCoy report from replacement QME Ciepiela was rescinded because the record was incomplete and the matter was returned for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Minute Orders (Orders) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 28, 2021, wherein the WCJ barred the report of orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Joseph McCoy, Jr., M.D., from being provided to replacement QME Michael D. Ciepiela, M.D., for his review, and ordered that the report from Dr. McCoy was "inadmissible for any purpose."
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record of proceedings did not contain a trial record including issues, stipulations, and admitted evidence, preventing proper review of the WCJ's order.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without a complete record, the Appeals Board could not properly address the issues raised and had to rescind the order and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 3However, we note that that the record of proceedings in this matter does not contain a trial record regarding the September 28, 2021, Expedited Hearing. The adjudication file does not contain a Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, there are no stipulations and/or issues identified, and there is no evidence admitted into the record.
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.
Prepared a medical-legal evaluation report that was barred from being provided to replacement QME Dr. Ciepiela due to alleged untimeliness.
The report was barred by the WCJ as inadmissible for any purpose due to alleged untimeliness.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Minute Orders (Orders) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 28, 2021, wherein the WCJ barred the report of orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Joseph McCoy, Jr., M.D., from being provided to replacement QME Michael D. Ciepiela, M.D., for his review, and ordered that the report from Dr. McCoy was "inadmissible for any purpose."
Replacement QME to review the case after Dr. McCoy's report was barred.
Replacement QME was appointed due to alleged untimeliness of original QME report.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Minute Orders (Orders) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 28, 2021, wherein the WCJ barred the report of orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Joseph McCoy, Jr., M.D., from being provided to replacement QME Michael D. Ciepiela, M.D., for his review, and ordered that the report from Dr. McCoy was "inadmissible for any purpose."
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 35(e)
Administrative Director Rule 35(e)
Prohibits forwarding medical/legal reports rejected as untimely to the evaluator.
From the decision · page 5If, as asserted by applicant, Dr. McCoy did not timely prepare and/or submit his initial medical-legal report, it was appropriate for applicant to request a replacement panel and for applicant to be examined by QME Dr. Ciepiela. However, Administrative Director Rule 35, subsection (e) states that, "In no event shall any party forward to the evaluator: (1) any medical/legal report which has been rejected by a party as untimely pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.5" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 35.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 38
Administrative Director Rule 38
Sets the timeframes for preparation and submission of medical-legal evaluation reports and conditions for replacement QME requests.
From the decision · page 5Pursuant to Administrative Director Rule 38:
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 31.5
Administrative Director Rule 31.5
Provides the conditions under which a replacement QME or panel may be selected, including failure to meet deadlines and objections to late reports.
From the decision · page 5Administrative Director Rule 31.5 states:
Labor Code section 4062.5
Labor Code section 4062.5
Governs the timeframes and conditions for obtaining replacement QME evaluations when the original QME fails to timely complete the evaluation.
From the decision · page 1We previously granted defendant's Petition to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. Although defendant sought removal, the WCJ's ruling resolves threshold issues pursuant to the provisions of Labor Code section 4062.5 and Administrative Director Rule 38(b);1 thus, defendant's Petition is deemed a petition for reconsideration. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.2
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Lack of a complete trial record including issues submitted, stipulations, and admitted evidence
From the decision · page 3However, we note that that the record of proceedings in this matter does not contain a trial record regarding the September 28, 2021, Expedited Hearing. The adjudication file does not contain a Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, there are no stipulations and/or issues identified, and there is no evidence admitted into the record.
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.