What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ's May 30, 2025 decision rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on May 30, 2025, which found that QME Dr. Lorenzo Hughes violated Labor Code section 4628 and granted defendant's petition for a replacement QME panel. The WCAB treats the petition as one for reconsideration, grants it, rescinds the WCJ's decision, and returns the matter for further proceedings.
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 Dr. Hughes violated section 4628 by allowing a third party to summarize medical records, but the WCAB found due process was not afforded to Dr. Hughes before striking the reports, so the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the reporting of QME Dr. Lorenzo Hughes violated Labor Code section 46281; that the reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence; and, that it must be stricken from the record. The WCJ also granted defendant's petition for a replacement QME panel and ordered that a replacement panel in pain medicine be provided within 30 days.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Hughes' medical-legal reports allowed a third party to summarize medical records, violating Labor Code section 4628.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This violation was the basis for the WCJ's order striking the reports and granting replacement QME panel petition.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the reporting of QME Dr. Lorenzo Hughes violated Labor Code section 46281; that the reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence; and, that it must be stricken from the record. The WCJ also granted defendant's petition for a replacement QME panel and ordered that a replacement panel in pain medicine be provided within 30 days.
Dr. Hughes was not provided notice or opportunity to be heard before his reports were struck, violating due process rights.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Due process violation required rescinding the WCJ's decision and remanding for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 7Here, the due process rights of Dr. Hughes were implicated by the WCJ's findings that section 4628 was violated and that Dr. Hughes' medical-legal reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence. Notably, if there is ultimately an order that Dr. Hughes' reporting will be stricken,3 Dr. Hughes will not be compensated for his work on this matter, including the preparation of six medical-legal reports. (Lab. Code, § 4628(e); Defendant's Exhs. A - F.) Dr. Hughes, as both a "party in interest" and a potential lien claimant, is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before his medical-legal reporting is stricken. (Vacanti, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 811; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10670(b) (4), 10702.) Yet, there is no evidence in the record that he was provided with notice that a determination under section 4628 would be made, nor was he provided with an opportunity to be heard on that issue prior to the WCJ's findings.
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.
Evaluated applicant and issued six reports; deposition taken; reports found to violate Labor Code section 4628 for allowing third-party summary of medical records.
Reports violated Labor Code section 4628 by allowing third-party summary of medical records, leading to petition for replacement panel and striking of reports.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the reporting of QME Dr. Lorenzo Hughes violated Labor Code section 46281; that the reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence; and, that it must be stricken from the record. The WCJ also granted defendant's petition for a replacement QME panel and ordered that a replacement panel in pain medicine be provided within 30 days.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4628
Labor Code section 4628
Sets mandatory requirements for medical-legal reports and consequences for non-compliance, including report inadmissibility and penalties for physicians.
From the decision · page 4III. Section 4628 describes mandatory requirements for any physician signing a medical-legal report including requirements that the physician personally conduct the examination; that the date and location of the evaluation be disclosed; that the evaluation comply with applicable laws; that the evaluation disclose the name and qualifications of any person who performed services, other than clerical services, in connection with the report; that the report describe in detail any variances with these procedures; that the physician disclose any amount paid for other persons to perform evaluations, procedures or services; and that the physician sign the report with a declaration under penalty of perjury that the contents of the report are true and correct. (Lab. Code, § 4628(a), (b), (i), (j).) Section 4628 also requires that the taking of patient history and excerpting of medical
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No notice or opportunity to be heard was provided to Dr. Hughes before the WCJ struck his reports under section 4628, violating due process rights.
From the decision · page 7Here, the due process rights of Dr. Hughes were implicated by the WCJ's findings that section 4628 was violated and that Dr. Hughes' medical-legal reporting does not constitute substantial medical evidence. Notably, if there is ultimately an order that Dr. Hughes' reporting will be stricken,3 Dr. Hughes will not be compensated for his work on this matter, including the preparation of six medical-legal reports. (Lab. Code, § 4628(e); Defendant's Exhs. A - F.) Dr. Hughes, as both a "party in interest" and a potential lien claimant, is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before his medical-legal reporting is stricken. (Vacanti, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 811; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10670(b) (4), 10702.) Yet, there is no evidence in the record that he was provided with notice that a determination under section 4628 would be made, nor was he provided with an opportunity to be heard on that issue prior to the WCJ's findings.
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.