Castaneda: A Remote Psychiatric QME Dispute Needed an Evidentiary Record

A stipulation that a psychiatric QME conducted only remote appointments did not provide the record needed to decide a disputed replacement request. In Castaneda v. Good Samaritan Shelter, No. ADJ20437328 (WCAB Jan. 15, 2026), the Appeals Board dismissed reconsideration of its record-development order and denied removal. The parties still needed to litigate the remote-evaluation and replacement questions on evidence.

The August order and November remand addressed different stages

The WCJ’s August 29, 2025 findings denied the requested remote psychiatric evaluation under Administrative Director Rule 46.3 and ordered a replacement panel. On November 10, the Board rescinded that ruling and returned the matter for further proceedings. The parties had created no formal record beyond a stipulation about the QME’s remote-only appointments. Opinion, pages 3–5.

The defendant then challenged the November decision, seeking reconsideration or removal and arguing that further record development was unnecessary. The January opinion addressed that challenge. It was not the initial decision on whether a remote examination could proceed.

A record-development direction was not a final order

Applying its en banc decision in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg. (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462, 475, the Board explained that reconsideration requires a final order determining a substantive right or liability, including a qualifying threshold issue. Procedural and evidentiary orders ordinarily do not meet that definition. The November decision required further proceedings; it did not finally decide the worker’s entitlement to a remote examination or the right to replacement. The Board therefore dismissed reconsideration. Pages 3–4.

The distinction matters when choosing a challenge. Calling a procedural direction incorrect does not turn it into a final order. The question is what the order actually determined, not simply whether a party disagrees with it.

Removal required harm that the defendant did not establish

The Board separately considered removal, an extraordinary remedy requiring both substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and a showing that later reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. It found no such showing. If further trial-level proceedings ultimately produced an adverse final decision, the defendant could seek review then. Pages 4–5.

The formal record was itself essential. The Board emphasized the need to investigate the relevant facts and establish an evidentiary basis for a decision. A bare stipulation about the doctor’s appointment format did not establish whether good cause for replacement existed. Requiring that basic work did not establish the extraordinary harm needed to bypass the ordinary process.

Rule 46.3 identifies the facts that a format dispute can raise

Rule 46.3 permits remote medical-legal evaluations where a hands-on examination is unnecessary and its specified conditions are met. The eligible disputes concern whether an injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment, termination of indemnity payments, or disputed work restrictions. Other conditions include written agreement by the worker, carrier or employer and QME, appropriate medical practice and a written no-in-person-exam attestation. The rule also addresses two-way video and audio, privacy, standard of care and the deemed examination site.

Those requirements explain why “the doctor offers only remote appointments” does not answer the entire dispute. What medical issue is presented? What has each participant agreed to in writing? What has the physician said about the need for an in-person examination? The January panel decision required the evidentiary foundation rather than deciding those facts itself. Our remote-QME guide addresses that practical preparation task.

The Board’s action clock was separate from the party’s filing deadline

The opinion also applied amended Labor Code section 5909. The file was transmitted to the Board December 1, 2025, making January 30, 2026 the end of its stated 60-day action period. The January 15 decision was timely. Because the petition challenged a Board decision, the WCJ prepared no report and recommendation, and the district office supplied no other transmission notice. The Board found that the required notice was missing but that the omission did not change its action deadline in this case. Pages 2–3.

That discussion concerns time for the Board to act. It is not a 60-day period for a party to challenge an order. Footnote 1 noted that this defendant had filed at the district office and directed it to follow Rule 10940(a) in the future when challenging Board decisions, including filing in EAMS and directly with the Board. The actual decision challenged and applicable filing rules must be identified before calculating a party’s deadline.

The result left the substantive format dispute unresolved

The WCAB panel dismissed reconsideration and denied removal, applying the finality and extraordinary-review standards to this record-development order. The substantive remote-evaluation and replacement questions returned to the trial level for evidence and adjudication.

For a comparable dispute, preserve the appointment and panel records, written agreements or objections, physician statements and relevant orders. Identify the actual ground for replacement and evidence addressing it. Our Vazquez discussion concerns the different problem of evaluator unavailability. A format dispute needs its own record rather than an assumption that a scheduling rule decides it.