Vazquez v. Renteria (2025) ADJ11017003

HOLDING No. 1 · VAZQUEZ (2025) · EN BANC · BINDING · PROSPECTIVE · at p. 2
“Only the Appeals Board has jurisdiction to determine whether a replacement panel is valid or otherwise appropriate.”

HOLDING No. 2 · VAZQUEZ (2025) · EN BANC · BINDING · PROSPECTIVE · at p. 2
“In a represented case, where a QME does not timely establish availability to set an appointment pursuant to AD Rule 31.3, a WCJ or the Appeals Board has discretion to order a replacement QME for good cause. The WCJ or the Appeals Board may consider the following: a. The length of delay caused by the QME’s unavailability. b. The amount of prejudice caused by the delay in availability versus the amount of prejudice caused by restarting the QME process. c. What efforts, if any, have been made to remedy the QME’s availability. d. Case specific factual reasons that justify replacing or keeping the current QME, including whether a party may have waived its objection. e. The Appeals Board’s constitutional mandate to “accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character.” (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.)”