Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Vazquez: A Late QME Appointment Does Not Automatically Require Replacement

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 3, 2026

Abel Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria clarified the remedy when a qualified medical evaluator cannot schedule an examination within the administrative deadline in a represented workers’ compensation case.

Replacement is an adjudicatory question

The Board held that it—not the Medical Unit acting automatically—has jurisdiction to decide whether a replacement panel is valid or appropriate when the parties dispute the issue.

Missing the appointment window is not automatic replacement

For represented workers, inability to obtain an appointment within Rule 31.3’s timeframe does not alone compel a new evaluator. The workers’ compensation judge exercises discretion upon a showing of good cause.

Five considerations guide discretion

The decision identifies delay length, prejudice from waiting versus restarting, efforts to remedy availability, case-specific reasons including waiver, and the constitutional mandate for substantial justice through expeditious and inexpensive proceedings.

The rule operates prospectively

The Board expressly applied its interpretation prospectively. Parties should create a concrete record rather than assume a scheduling problem automatically invalidates the existing panel.

Key takeaways

• Document the evaluator’s available dates and every scheduling effort.
• Compare prejudice from delay with prejudice from restarting.
• Raise waiver and case-specific circumstances expressly.
• Seek an adjudicated replacement order instead of treating replacement as automatic.