Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company Tsegay Messele WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATSEGAY MESSELE, Applicant,vs.PITCO FOODS, INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7232076OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION, ORDER GRANTING REMOVAL, AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL (EN BANC) The Appeals Board previously granted applicant’s petition for reconsideration of the January 20, 2011 decision of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein it was found that the properly assigned qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel in this case was the panel requested by defendant, not the panel requested by applicant.1 On reconsideration, applicant contends that the WCJ erred in applying Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1013 to extend by five calendar days the 10-day time period provided in Labor Code section 4062.2(b) for the parties to agree on an agreed medical evaluator (AME), during which time period the parties may not request a panel QME. Applicant further contends that, if CCP section 1013 is held to apply, the five-day extension would invalidate defendant’s panel QME request as well as applicant’s request. Because of the important legal issues regarding the timeline set forth in Labor Code section 4062.2(b) for selecting an AME and requesting a panel QME, the Chairman of the Appeals Board, upon a majority vote of its members, assigned this case to the Appeals Board as a whole for an en banc 1 The caption of our Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration, as well as the WCJ’s Finding of Fact and applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, show applicant’s name as “Messele Tsegay.” As his correct name appears to be “Tsegay Messele,” we have used that name in this opinion and have corrected the record in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). , decision, (Lab. Code, § 115.)2 For the reasons discussed below, we hold: (1) w
