WCAB San Francisco,
October 17, 2016
Parties had each separately requested supplemental reporting from the PQME. Six months after the defendant’s initial request, defendant objected to the PQME as untimely and requested a replacement panel. However, two days before the request was made, the PQME had issued the supplemental report in response to both parties’ requests. WCJ denied defendant’s request for the replacement panel. WCAB affirmed, indicating the defendant likely waived its objection to the PQME. The Board also emphasized that replacing the PQME now would go against the Constitutional mandate to accomplish substantial justice in all cases in the most expeditious, inexpensive, and unencumbered manner possible.