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.
From the decision · page 5DISCUSSION "The employer shall be liable for the cost of each reasonable and necessary comprehensive medical-legal evaluation obtained by the employee pursuant to Sections 4060, 4061, and 4062." (Lab. Code, § 4064(a).) Defendant sent letters to applicant objecting to an evaluation with a psychological panel QME. However, the record does not reflect that defendant advised Dr. Strada that it objected to her evaluation. In fact, the record shows that defendant sent an advocacy letter to Dr. Strada stating that she had "been appointed and chosen as the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner" prior to the appointment. (Cost Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, Defendant's Adversarial PQME Letter, August 8, 2016, p. 1.) There are also indications that defendant jointly provided her with records to review as part of her evaluation. (Id.) Defendant's November 1, 2016 letter to Dr. Strada regarding the late appointment fee incorrectly states that the parties were not notified of the missed appointment
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant did not timely object to Dr. Strada's evaluation and billing.
Favours Applicant prevailed
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.