What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Applicant seeks reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Order issued on October 1, 2025, which found injury AOE/COE and addressed QME panel selection issues.
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 found the applicant's selection of Dr. Tahami premature because the striking period for the QME panel started anew on December 6, 2024, and had not expired by December 9, 2024, when the applicant selected Dr. Tahami.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative, removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 1, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on January 11, 2020 as a rental leasing consultant, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and psyche. The WCJ further held that panel 3448334 is valid; applicant's December 9, 2024 selection of Hosein Tahami, D.O. as the psyche panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) from said panel was premature; the parties April 3, 2024 agreement to continue use of Jeffrey Gould, M.D. as the psyche PQME was in effect until its termination on December 6, 2024; and the time frame during which the parties were to commence the striking process for panel number 3448334 was October 1, 2025--the date of service of the F&O.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The striking period for the QME panel started anew on December 6, 2024, upon receipt of ExamWorks' email requesting telemedicine agreement.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This meant the applicant's selection of Dr. Tahami on December 9, 2024 was premature as the strike period had not expired.
From the decision · page 8The applicant's selection of Dr. Tahami as the QME on December 9, 2024 was therefore premature since the period to strike a physician from the QME panel, as provided by Labor Code section 4062.2(c), started anew on December 6, 2024[, upon receipt of the ExamWorks email,] and had not yet run by December 9, 2024. Because strike period had not yet run... the applicant did not have the legal right to select a QME from the remaining names on the panel on December 9, 2024. There also was not a right to schedule an appointment with Dr. Tahami on December 12, 2025[.]
Neither party made a strike from the QME panel, indicating effective agreement not to proceed with the pending panel.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports the conclusion that the striking process had not been properly initiated before the F&O service date.
From the decision · page 9Further, the fact that "neither party made a strike supports that the parties were effectively agreeing not to proceed with [the] pending QME panel[.]" (Report, p. 8.)
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.
Applicant selected Dr. Tahami as the replacement psyche QME prematurely before the striking period had expired.
The WCJ found the selection premature based on the timing of the striking period under Labor Code section 4062.2(c).
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative, removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 1, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on January 11, 2020 as a rental leasing consultant, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and psyche. The WCJ further held that panel 3448334 is valid; applicant's December 9, 2024 selection of Hosein Tahami, D.O. as the psyche panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) from said panel was premature; the parties April 3, 2024 agreement to continue use of Jeffrey Gould, M.D. as the psyche PQME was in effect until its termination on December 6, 2024; and the time frame during which the parties were to commence the striking process for panel number 3448334 was October 1, 2025--the date of service of the F&O.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 regarding the timing for Appeals Board action on petitions for reconsideration.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within 60 days of case transmission.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on November 6, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is January 5, 2025. This decision was issued by or on January 5, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
Labor Code section 4062.2(c)
Labor Code section 4062.2(c) regarding the striking process for QME panels.
The striking period started anew on December 6, 2024, triggering the timing rules for selecting a replacement QME.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration, or in the alternative, removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on October 1, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant on January 11, 2020 as a rental leasing consultant, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome), and psyche. The WCJ further held that panel 3448334 is valid; applicant's December 9, 2024 selection of Hosein Tahami, D.O. as the psyche panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) from said panel was premature; the parties April 3, 2024 agreement to continue use of Jeffrey Gould, M.D. as the psyche PQME was in effect until its termination on December 6, 2024; and the time frame during which the parties were to commence the striking process for panel number 3448334 was October 1, 2025--the date of service of the F&O.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's Exhibit 9 showing contact with QME offices in April 2024 indicating only Dr. Tahami performed in-person evaluations.
From the decision · page 7We disagree. As stated by the WCJ in his Report: I am also not persuaded by applicant's contention that she will be prejudiced because my decision will necessarily result in the need for another replacement panel. Applicant based this assertion on contact with the three providers on QME panel number 3448334 indicating that only Dr. Tahami performs in person evaluations. This is based on Applicant's Exhibit 9 which contains notes from contact with the three doctors' offices in April 2024 that only Dr. Tahami was scheduling in-person evaluations. That may still be the case, but I am not persuaded that contact with the QMEs' offices 15 months prior to the trial date is sufficient evidence to establish that Dr. Dutta and Dr. Stahl continue to only do evaluations via telehealth. Additionally, filing a petition for removal does not represent a path to a more expeditious evaluation than striking providers and requesting another replacement panel if needed. It would appear then that the goal in disputing the 10/1/2025 Findings & Order is not an expeditious evaluation of the applicant, but rather that Dr. Tahami serve as the QME in this matter. Therefore, I do not find that applicant has established that a further replacement panel is required, or the existence of the accompanying substantial prejudice the applicant alleges would result.
Lack of evidence that Dr. Dutta and Dr. Stahl continued to only do telehealth evaluations 15 months later.
From the decision · page 7We disagree. As stated by the WCJ in his Report: I am also not persuaded by applicant's contention that she will be prejudiced because my decision will necessarily result in the need for another replacement panel. Applicant based this assertion on contact with the three providers on QME panel number 3448334 indicating that only Dr. Tahami performs in person evaluations. This is based on Applicant's Exhibit 9 which contains notes from contact with the three doctors' offices in April 2024 that only Dr. Tahami was scheduling in-person evaluations. That may still be the case, but I am not persuaded that contact with the QMEs' offices 15 months prior to the trial date is sufficient evidence to establish that Dr. Dutta and Dr. Stahl continue to only do evaluations via telehealth. Additionally, filing a petition for removal does not represent a path to a more expeditious evaluation than striking providers and requesting another replacement panel if needed. It would appear then that the goal in disputing the 10/1/2025 Findings & Order is not an expeditious evaluation of the applicant, but rather that Dr. Tahami serve as the QME in this matter. Therefore, I do not find that applicant has established that a further replacement panel is required, or the existence of the accompanying substantial prejudice the applicant alleges would result.
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.