Amaya: A Continuing QME Agreement and Notice Problems Supported Restarting Panel Strikes

Amaya v. Jalson Co., No. ADJ13002614 (WCAB Jan. 5, 2026), concerned a replacement psychiatry-QME panel that the parties did not use while they continued arranging an examination with the original evaluator. The worker later attempted to select a doctor unilaterally from that replacement panel. The WCAB denied reconsideration and upheld an order restarting the striking process.

This is a WCAB panel decision, citable for persuasive reasoning rather than binding precedent.

The replacement panel remained unused after an agreement to continue

The defendant initially requested replacement because the existing psychiatric evaluator was not offering the desired in-person reevaluation. Before the replacement panel issued, the parties confirmed an in-person appointment with that evaluator. A replacement panel nevertheless issued on April 10, 2024. The record did not establish whether the planned June examination took place. Amaya, slip op. at 2–3.

A December 6 scheduling email later proposed telemedicine and indicated that a new QME would be needed absent agreement. On December 9, the worker’s attorney asserted that the defendant had failed to strike and selected a doctor after striking the other two names. The defendant objected, maintaining that its assigned attorney had not received the earlier scheduling notice. Id. at 3–4.

The judge reset strikes, and the Board applied the removal standard to the disputed issue

The judge found the replacement panel valid but the selection premature. The order treated its own service on October 1, 2025 as the event starting the striking process anew. The worker challenged the result through reconsideration or, alternatively, removal. Id. at 1, 4.

The Board explained that a decision resolving a threshold issue may be final even when it also contains interlocutory rulings. Because the petition disputed the QME procedural issue, the Board evaluated that issue under the more demanding removal standard. It required the asserted significant prejudice or irreparable harm and inadequacy of later reconsideration relief, rather than treating every selection disagreement as grounds for immediate intervention. Id. at 5–7.

Old availability evidence did not establish the claimed prejudice

The worker argued that another selection process would be futile because only the preferred doctor performed in-person evaluations. The office-contact notes supporting that claim were approximately 15 months old by trial. The panel accepted the judge’s concern that those notes did not establish current availability or the alleged need for yet another replacement panel. Id. at 7.

The result was record-specific. It did not declare that scheduling delays can never be prejudicial, or that a physician’s availability is irrelevant. It found the evidence offered insufficient to justify the requested extraordinary remedy.

Equitable tolling depended on the agreement and notice record

The panel described equitable tolling as a factual determination reserved to the Board, with notice and prejudice important to the analysis. Here, the parties had effectively agreed not to proceed with the pending panel, neither made a strike, and the assigned defense attorney allegedly was not copied on the email relied on to terminate that arrangement. The panel agreed that tolling applied and that striking would begin with service of the judge’s order. Id. at 8–9.

The operative result was denial of the worker’s petition, leaving the renewed selection process in place. It was not a general rule that an attorney may extend deadlines through unilateral conduct, nor a decision about whether telemedicine is suitable in every case. For the practical document comparison, see our guide to an unused replacement panel after a continued-QME agreement.