CompFox AI Summary
The Board dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, as only final orders are subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a). The WCJ's order concerning the invalidity of a QME panel and the issuance of a new one was deemed an interlocutory discovery matter, not a final decision. Even if considered a petition for removal, the Board would have denied it on the merits because the Medical Unit misinterpreted QME Regulation 30(d)(1) by limiting QME panel requests to defendants, which conflicts with Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2. The Board expressed no opinion on the appropriateness of the pain management specialty, noting the Defendant could dispute it separately.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Board dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, as only final orders are subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a). The WCJ's order concerning the invalidity of a QME panel and the issuance of a new one was deemed an interlocutory discovery matter, not a final decision. Even if considered a petition for removal, the Board would have denied it on the merits because the Medical Unit misinterpreted QME Regulation 30(d)(1) by limiting QME panel requests to defendants, which conflicts with Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2. The Board expressed no opinion on the appropriateness of the pain management specialty, noting the Defendant could dispute it separately.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.