Share this article:
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 30 establishes the process by which a party may request a panel of qualified medical evaluators (QMEs) from the DWC Medical Unit. CCR 30(b) applies when an employee is represented by an attorney. It requires a party requesting a panel to provide specified information, including the claim number.
Previously, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has been inconsistent as to whether a party's failure to provide the correct claim number renders a panel request invalid. In Sidahmed v. Alameda County Counsel, 2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 103, the WCAB held that a defendant's failure to provide the correct claim number rendered its request for the issuance of a panel of QMEs void ab initio. But later, it held in Salamat v. SBM Site Services, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 28, that an applicant's request for a panel was not invalid, even though she mistakenly listed a specific injury claim number on the panel request rather than the intended cumulative injury claim number, stating, "To find otherwise would place form over substance."
Now, a recent panel decision resolves this tension, establishing a bright line rule that even a minor, inadvertent error in a claim number will render a QME panel request invalid. The decision in Silveira v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 243, signals that the WCAB will prioritize procedural precision over a case-by-case analysis of a party’s intent.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In Silveira, the defendant requested a QME panel in orthopedic surgery, but omitted the final digit of the applicant’s assigned claim number in the request. The DWC Medical Unit issued a panel in response to the request. Eight days later, the applicant’s attorney requested a separate QME panel in physical medicine and rehabilitation, using the complete and correct claim number. That resulted in the issuance of a second, conflicting panel for the same claim.
The matter proceeded to an expedited hearing to determine the validity of the defendant's panel. The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that the defendant's panel was valid, concluding that the omission of a single digit was an inadvertent error and was not a sufficient basis to invalidate the panel. The applicant filed a petition for reconsideration.
WCAB'S DECISION
The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ’s decision. The board relied heavily on its previous decision in Sidahmed, and explained that "the claim number must be correct to prevent the issuance of conflicting or overlapping panels, and to save all parties the time and expense necessary to resolve these conflicts."
It noted that although California's public policy favored the adjudication of claims on their merits, rather than on the technical sufficiency of the pleadings, it believed that due process "requires that the initial mechanism by which a party obtains a QME evaluation must be accurate, transparent, and accessible to all parties." It reasoned that because the claim number is the sole basis for the Medical Unit to track prior panel issuances, strict accuracy is essential to provide all parties with the opportunity to evaluate a request's validity. The WCAB stated:
In sum, we believe that the better course is to require that parties strictly comply with the requirement in AD Rule 30 to provide a complete and correct claim number in making a request, rather than weighing and adjudging the individual facts and equity surrounding each incorrectly listed claim number in a QME panel dispute. In so doing, we seek to avoid the dangers of inconsistent outcomes, provide clarity to parties with respect to applicable minimum standards in requesting a QME panel, and allow parties to more easily predict whether a particular panel is valid without the need to seek intervention at the WCAB.
ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION
The Silveira decision indicates that moving forward, it will apply a bright line rule in assessing the validity of a panel with regard to the claim number. The WCAB has made it clear that it will not engage in a factual analysis of why a claim number was incorrect or how minor the error may seem. Any deviation from the complete and correct claim number will invalidate a panel request.
This ruling seeks to promote judicial efficiency by eliminating the time and expense of litigating panel validity. The WCAB's logic is that the claim number is the sole mechanism for the DWC Medical Unit to prevent duplicate panels, and allowing any errors would undermine the integrity of that system and violate principles of due process by creating confusion and uncertainty.
It is unclear from this decision whether a party's failure to correctly provide other information required by CCR 30(b)(1) (for example, the date of injury, the name of the primary treating physician, the date of the report objected to, etc.) will render a panel request invalid. Nevertheless, the lesson from Silveira is straightforward: Practitioners must exercise extreme diligence when submitting QME panel requests.
Before submitting, the claim number must be verified for accuracy. Failure to do so, even as a result of a minor typographical error, will result in an invalid panel, causing delays and potentially forfeiting a party’s opportunity to obtain a panel in its preferred specialty. So, double-checking the claim number is no longer just good practice — it is a procedural necessity.
For further discussion on the process of requesting a QME panel when an employee is represented, see Section 14.29 Medical-Legal Process — Represented Employee.