Menu Close

In the case of Dolores Natividad v Sherbourne Properties, Inc Natividad claims to have sustained an industrial injury to multiple body parts as a result of a continuous trauma. The injury has been denied by the employer. She has been treated by Craig Chanin, M.D., who identifies his areas of practice as “family practice/occupational medicine.” On April 18, 2014, she filed a Request for Panel QME and identified Labor Code section 40601 (compensability exam) as the reason for the request. She did not identify the primary treating physician. She requested a panel of chiropractors but did not submit any relevant documentation supporting designation of chiropractors.

The panel issued on May 9, 2014. Defendant wrote a letter to applicant’s attorney dated May 27, 2014, objecting to the panel of chiropractors and stating that Dr. Chanin’s area of practice is general medicine. On June 12, 2014, defendant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, requesting a status conference and stating: “Defendant contends state panel QME No. 1630249 was improperly procured and the specialty requested is improper. . . . The panel was requested in the field of chiropractic medicine. It is defendant’s contention that since the applicant is claiming injuries for the back leg and lower extremities the more appropriate QME would be in the field of orthopedic medicine.” On September 8, 2014, defendant filed a Replacement Panel Request. It attached the report of Dr. Chanin and requested a panel in the field of occupational medicine.

The WCJ found that the panel of chiropractic qualified medical evaluators dated May 9, 2014, was at all times and currently is a valid QME panel in this case. The WCAB rejected a Petition for Removal.

Rule 31.1 (b) provides: “In the event at party in a represented case wishes to request a QME panel pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.2 in a specialty other than the specialty of the treating physician, the party shall submit with the panel request form any relevant documentation supporting the reason for requesting a different specialty.” In this case, applicant did not comply with this rule. She did not identify the treating physician or his specialty. She did not attach documentation supporting a panel of chiropractors.

However, defendant did not object to the Medical Unit when applicant filed her Request for Panel QME. Defendant did not file its Replacement Panel Request until four months after the issuance of the panel of chiropractors. In these circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s objection to the Medical Unit was untimely. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that it has sustained substantial prejudice or irreparable harm because of the WCJ’s decision and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if it is aggrieved by any final order arising from the designation of a chiropractic QME.