Kept the Old QME After a Replacement Panel? Check the Agreement and Notice

In a represented workers’ compensation claim, a replacement QME panel may arrive while both sides are still arranging an examination with the original evaluator. If they then agree to continue with that doctor, an unused panel does not necessarily let one side later declare the other’s strike opportunity lost. The agreement, its end, and notice to the correct representatives can become central to the dispute.

That was the problem addressed in Amaya v. Jalson Co., a January 5, 2026 WCAB panel decision. The Board upheld a fresh striking process rather than the worker’s unilateral selection from the old replacement panel. The disputed striking process arose under Labor Code section 4062.2(c). This guide concerns that unusual sequence, not the ordinary initial-panel deadline.

Preserve the agreement that kept the original evaluator involved

Start with the replacement request and panel itself, then collect correspondence showing what both sides agreed to do afterward. An appointment confirmation, an objection to telemedicine, and a later agreement to an in-person visit may explain why neither party proceeded with the replacement list.

In Amaya, the insurer sought a replacement after a dispute over in-person evaluation. The parties then confirmed an appointment with the existing doctor before the replacement panel issued. The subsequent scheduling history became important when in-person evaluation was again uncertain. Slip opinion at 2–4.

Separate an email being sent from the right person receiving notice

A scheduling email may be the first sign that the earlier arrangement has broken down. Keep its complete recipient list and attachments, not only a screenshot of the message body. Record which attorney was assigned at that time and whether the message reached that attorney.

The panel noted an allegation that the assigned defense attorney was not copied on the December 6 email relied on to restart the process. Notice and possible prejudice mattered to its equitable-tolling analysis. It agreed that the striking period would begin with service of the judge’s order. The decision does not establish that every missed email automatically suspends a statutory period. Amaya, slip op. at 8–9.

Do not confuse an old availability note with current availability

The worker also argued that restarting strikes would cause prejudice because only one doctor offered in-person evaluations. The supporting office-contact notes were about 15 months old by trial. The panel was not persuaded that those old contacts established the doctors’ current availability or the claimed harm. Id. at 7.

Preserve dated responses from the doctors’ offices and tell counsel what was actually confirmed. An unanswered call, a statement about a different date, and a written refusal to offer an examination are different facts. Do not infer a present scheduling limitation from a much earlier exchange.

Ask for a review of the whole sequence before selecting a doctor

A useful file has the original panel and evaluator history; the replacement request and issue date; any written continuation agreement; subsequent appointment notices; the communication said to end the arrangement; and proofs of service. A single chronology should identify both the event and its recipient.

Only the Board could make the equitable factual determination discussed in Amaya. A party should not treat this case as permission to disregard a live deadline or independently assume tolling. The panel also found no showing justifying extraordinary removal relief; disagreement with the selection process did not itself establish irreparable harm. Id. at 5–8.

Our case analysis of Amaya explains the order and its limits. For advice about a current panel, gather the complete correspondence for a California workers’ compensation consultation promptly rather than waiting for a disputed clock to expire.