On April 2, 2014, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued an en banc decision in Navarro v. City of Montebello which invalidated part of QME Regulation 35.5(e) .

In 2009, Ismael Navarro filed an application and claim form alleging a cumulative injury from February 9, 2008 to February 9, 2009 to his back and ear and was evaluated by panel QME J. Yogaratnam, M.D., Then in 2010, applicant filed applications for adjudication with claim forms alleging a specific injury of June 1, 2010 to his back, lower extremities and legs and a specific injury of August 31, 2010 to his back and left leg.

In 2012, defendant petitioned to compel an evaluation of applicant’s two subsequent claims of injury by original panel QME Dr. Yogaratnam, but it did not seek to have applicant reevaluated regarding his previous claim of cumulative injury. Applicant objected. The WCJ found that applicant was entitled to a new panel QME in his specific injury cases and that QME Rule 35.5(e) that seems to require an applicant to return to the original QME did not apply. The WCAB agreed (using a slightly different rationale) and ruled that for subsequently filed claims, an applicant need no return to an original PQME.

Pursuant to the WCAB’s ruling that the applicable Labor Code provisions do not require an employee to return to t he same panel QME for an evaluation of a subsequent claim of injury, the DWC Medical Unit will now issue new QME panels for claims made after an evaluation has taken place. Initial QME panel requests must be submitted using QME Form 106 for represented cases or QME Form 105 for unrepresented cases.

To avoid unnecessary rejection of appropriate requests, in cases i n which additional panels are required in different specialties, parties and attorneys are reminded to use QME Form 31.7