• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Call us today for help!  (818) 707-1488

  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Friedman + Bartoumian

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense
    • Business Litigation
    • Insurance Law
    • Employment and Labor Law
    • General Liability Defense
  • Attorneys
    • Heywood G. Friedman, Founder and Managing Partner
    • Haik K. Bartoumian, Senior Partner
    • All Attorneys
  • Testimonials
  • Legal Art
  • Serving the Community
  • Careers
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense
    • Business Litigation
    • Insurance Law
    • Employment and Labor Law
    • General Liability Defense
  • Attorneys
    • Heywood G. Friedman, Founder and Managing Partner
    • Haik K. Bartoumian, Senior Partner
    • All Attorneys
  • Testimonials
  • Legal Art
  • Serving the Community
  • Careers
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Contact Us Today!

If you see lawyers who are ready and able to collaborate with you to find positive solutions to your legal concerns, you should contact us.

(818) 707-1480

QME Strike Procedures: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

August 17, 2022 //  by Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian//  Leave a Comment

Do you know what happens in a workers’ compensation case when an applicant and their employer simultaneously strike the same physician from a PQME list? Do you know what happens when a party fails make any strike? The answers to these questions are not contained in either the Labor Code or the Code of Regulations, but instead, are found in case law decisions. 

In the recent decision in Kowal v. County of Los Angeles (2022 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 109) the Board provided guidance on how parties are to proceed when only one QME is struck from a panel. According to the Board’s decision, the party that ultimately schedules the QME appointment may select either of the two remaining physicians as the QME. However, Labor Code 4062.2(d) grants applicant the exclusive right to proceed first by allowing applicant 10 days to schedule an appointment.  Afterwards, it becomes a race, where either side may select the QME and schedule the examination.

To further explain the Kowal decision here are two scenarios for consideration:

Scenario 1:  The employer strikes a physician from the PQME list, but applicant fails to do so.  When the time to strike expires, the applicant has 10 days to schedule an appointment with either of two remaining QMEs on the list. Thus, applicant is given a second chance and may select the QME. Should applicant fail to timely act within 10 days, the employer may select the QME and schedule the appointment.

Scenario 2:  This time the applicant strikes a physician from the PQME list, but the employer fails to do so. When the time to strike expires, the applicant has 10 days to schedule an appointment with either of two remaining QMEs. Should applicant fail to timely act within 10 days, the employer may select the QME and schedule the appointment.  Thus, the employer is given a second chance even though they failed to strike.

Although seldom encountered we cannot help but ask, “What happens should both sides fail to strike?”  Although not directly addressed in the Kowal decision, the Board did imply that the party which takes the initiative to schedule the QME appointment may select any of the 3 physicians on the panel list as the QME pursuant to the procedures described in the above scenarios.

Relative to our opening questions above, the Kowal court also did not provide guidance on what happens when the same QME is struck by both sides.  In hedge of that possibility, we often see both applicant and defense attorneys issuing a “conditional” strike by using this language: “We strike Dr. X but in the event Dr. X is struck by both parties, we hereby strike Dr. Y.”  We at F&B are unaware of any case or statutory law granting a party the right to issue a conditional back-up strike.  Instead, it appears that the parties are limited to the procedures outlined in the Kowal decision.

Category: Legal, Seminar, Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers' Compensation Claims Handling, Workers' Compensation

You May Also Be Interested In:

The Five-Day Rule: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Creating Needless Claims: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Imputed Knowledge: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Claims Forfeiture: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

The Self-Insurance Exam: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

EAMS Case Search: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Requesting an Additional QME: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Occupational Adjustment: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Terrorism Claims: A 60-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Previous Post: « Defending Conditional Payment Claims: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling
Next Post: The DWC-5020: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Footer

Practice Areas

  • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense
  • Business Litigation
  • Insurance Law
  • Employment and Labor Law
  • General Liability Defense

Our Offices

Los Angeles
Orange County
Bay Area
Sacramento
Fresno
Contact Us Today →

Contact Us

Contact our legal office today. Our attorneys are ready to fight for you. There is no time better than now.
Contact Us Today →

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Newsletter

Sign up to get free resources, tips, and directory of our firm.

  • Legal Blog
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Serving the Community

Site Footer

This website may be used for informational purposes only. The information contained in this Website is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No one should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information in this website without seeking the appropriate legal and professional counsel on his or her particular circumstances. The operation of this website and the transmission of information via this website are not intended to and do not create a confidential or attorney-client relationship. Any communications with The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, via Internet e-mail or through this website contain the security limits inherent to standard e-mail and should not be considered secure or confidential. While The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, hopes that the information contained in this website are useful as general information or background material, and while the contents of the Website are updated regularly, it cannot offer a warranty that the information is current, accurate, or applicable to any given situation. ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE DISCLAIMED. By the information within this website, The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, does not hold itself out as qualified to practice law in any state, territory, or country other than those in which its attorneys are actually qualified. Additionally, The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based on viewing this website in a state, territory, or country in which this website does not comply with the applicable laws and ethical rules of that state. Links – This website may contain links to third-party websites. These third-party websites are not under the control of The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, and The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, is in no way responsible for the contents of any linked websites or any links contained in such websites. Links to third-party websites are provided for convenience only and do not imply endorsement of the linked website by The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian.

Copyright © 2025 · Website Design By Ali Lapidus · Log in