WCAB Panel Holds That Email Notification Is Sufficient for QME Strike

Labor Code § 4062.2 establishes the rules for requesting a panel of qualified medical evaluators (QMEs) when an employee is represented by an attorney. After a panel is obtained, LC 4062.2(c) states, "Within 10 days of assignment of the panel by the administrative director, each party may strike one name from the panel." The statute does not describe the appropriate method for exercising a strike, but it adds, "The administrative director may prescribe the form, the manner, or both, by which the parties shall conduct the selection process." Although the administrative director has adopted regulations related to the QME selection process in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 29 et seq, none of the regulations discusses the striking process.

The proper method for striking a name from a panel of QME has caused procedural disputes stemming from a perceived conflict between administrative rules over whether service must be made by first-class mail or can be done electronically. They have led to litigation over the validity of QME strikes communicated via email without a prior agreement between the parties.

On Oct. 7, 2025, a WCAB panel issued its decision in Ramos v. Aqua Construction, Inc., 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 378, clarifying that the rules governing formal "service" of documents do not apply to a QME strike. The panel held that a strike is not a document that must be formally served; rather, it is a right that is exercised by simply notifying opposing counsel in a timely manner, including by email.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In Ramos, the defense attorney served a QME panel on the applicant's attorney via first-class mail that included striking one of the physicians. Within the statutory time frame, the applicant's attorney responded via email by striking a different physician from the panel. The defense asserted that the applicant's strike was improper because it was sent by email.

The matter proceeded to a hearing where the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that the applicant's email strike was invalid. The applicant filed a petition for removal.

WCAB'S DECISION

The WCAB panel granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order. The panel focused on the plain language of LC 4062.2(c). It noted that the statute requires only that a party may "exercise the right to strike a name from the panel," an option that does not mandate formal "service" of a document.

The panel explained that exercising this right simply requires timely notification to the opposing party of the name being struck. It emphasized that requiring formal service would defeat the fundamental principles of workers' compensation, in which substance is favored over procedural formalities. Accordingly, it concluded that the applicant's timely notification to the defendant via email was a valid exercise of his right to strike a QME.

ANALYSIS

The Ramos decision provides clarity and promotes efficiency in the QME selection process. It curtails the procedural gamesmanship of invalidating an opponent's timely QME strike based on the method of communication, confirming that the critical element is timely notification, not adherence to a specific method of service.

Although Ramos is not binding, it is citable and a likely indication of how the WCAB will decide the issue moving forward. For practitioners on both sides, this decision validates the widespread and practical use of email for communicating QME strikes. Attorneys can now confidently use email to exercise a strike without needing a prior agreement on the method of service.

In a footnote, Ramos indicated that a party could even communicate a strike orally, but it added that the parties should keep in mind their burden of proof if a dispute occurs. So, a timely, documented notification — such as an email — remains the most prudent practice.

For further discussion on the process for selecting QMEs under LC 4062.2, see Sullivan on Comp Section 14.29 Medical-Legal Process — Represented Employee.