What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's Findings of Facts and Orders of November 8, 2021 rescinded; new decision issued granting defendant entitlement to an additional QME panel in internal medicine.
Defendant sought removal or reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Facts and Orders issued November 8, 2021, challenging interlocutory finding regarding entitlement to an additional QME panel in internal medicine.
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.
Defendant is entitled to an additional QME panel in internal medicine because the orthopedic QME deferred causation for internal medicine issues to a specialist, and defendant needs the panel to conduct medical-legal discovery on disputed internal injuries.
From the decision · page 5Applicant has pled injury to the chest (blood clot) and circulatory system. Defendant disputes compensability for these body parts. Section 4062.2 governs the process to obtain a medical-legal evaluation from a panel QME in a represented case if the parties do not agree on an agreed medical evaluator (AME). (Lab. Code, § 4062.2.) In the absence of an additional panel in internal medicine, defendant is prevented from conducting necessary medical-legal discovery to determine compensability for the alleged injury to the chest and circulatory system. We therefore agree with defendant that an additional QME panel in internal medicine is warranted. (See McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906 [the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues].)