Martinez: A Treating-Report Objection Did Not Invalidate the QME Panel

The panel remained valid despite an untimely section 4062 objection

In Marisa Martinez v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. ADJ19266826 (WCAB Jan. 9, 2026), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an order vacating an orthopedic qualified medical evaluator panel. The worker’s objection failed under Labor Code section 4062, but it succeeded under the separate route in section 4061(b). The treating physician’s report contained a treatment plan addressing future medical care, and the worker had objected to that medical determination.

The result was narrow and important: The panel could be used to develop medical evidence. The Board did not decide the worker’s ultimate disability rating or resolve every disputed body part. This is a panel decision, rather than an en banc ruling binding statewide. The official opinion explains both the statutory basis and the alternative due-process ground.

The report, objection, and delayed panel challenge

The worker claimed a March 15, 2024 warehouse injury. Her treating physician examined her in October 2024 and issued a report containing diagnoses, work restrictions, and a treatment plan. On March 12, 2025, her attorney objected under sections 4061 and 4062 and stated that an orthopedic QME panel would be requested. The panel issued on April 4. The employer did not object until July 2, nearly three months later. Martinez, pages 2–3.

At the expedited hearing, the parties disputed the section 4062 objection’s timeliness, whether section 4061 required a maximum-medical-improvement report, and whether the employer had waited too long to object. The judge invalidated both statutory objections and vacated the panel. The judge did not decide the separate waiver question.

Why section 4061 supplied an independent route

The Board agreed that the section 4062 objection was made after the represented worker’s 20-day period, without an established extension for good cause or agreement. That conclusion did not dispose of section 4061(b), which addresses an objection to a treating physician’s determination about permanent impairment, limitations, or future medical care.

The judge had treated the report as containing nothing for section 4061 to address. The Board disagreed. The report included medication, acupuncture and TENS-unit referrals, and a later follow-up assessment. Those recommendations addressed future medical care. The worker’s objection therefore supplied a basis for the represented-worker evaluation process in section 4062.2. Martinez, pages 6–8.

The reasoning did not depend on treating the report as a final permanent-and-stationary evaluation. Nor did the panel require the worker to prove why she disliked each particular recommendation before obtaining the evaluation. That is different from holding that any objection to any report automatically creates a valid panel: The objection and the medical determination still had to fit the statutory route being used.

Why the review posture and due-process analysis mattered

The original order contained threshold findings of employment and industrial injury as well as the panel ruling. The Board treated the order as final for purposes of reconsideration, but applied the more demanding removal standard to the interlocutory panel issue. That required significant prejudice or irreparable harm and an inadequate later remedy. Martinez, pages 4–6.

The Board found that preventing access to the QME process denied the worker the evidence needed to advance the claim. It also identified that denial as an alternative due-process ground for rescission. The decision thus connects the procedural injury to the worker’s ability to develop and present evidence; it does not announce that ordinary evaluation deadlines can always be disregarded in the name of fairness.

The order restored the panel; it did not create a new waiver deadline

The substituted findings preserved the industrial back-injury finding and stated that panel 7799762 was properly issued and would not be vacated. The Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the earlier findings and order. Martinez, pages 10–11.

The employer’s delay drew criticism, but the Board expressly did not need to resolve the third trial issue about waiver. Its discussion used other authority by analogy and discouraged tactical objections. It would overstate the holding to say that the decision establishes a universal 20-day deadline for objecting to every QME panel.

How to use the decision in a different panel dispute

Start by matching the actual report and objection to the asserted statutory route. Then separate the report-objection deadline from the panel request, service, and later challenge. A party defending the panel should explain the medical issue the evaluator would address; a party challenging it should identify the specific defect and resulting prejudice.

Our QME-panel preparation guide translates those distinctions into a document-by-document review. The case supports careful use of section 4061(b), not a shortcut around the separate treatment-authorization and evaluation rules in a California workers’ compensation matter.