The Division of Workers’ Compensation has added thorough Quality Assurance Checklists for med-legal evaluators to its website that could also be useful for attorneys, hearing representatives, and other practitioners as well.
A team of doctors, attorneys, and judges teamed up and created the checklists in an effort to improve med-legal reporting by physicians in the workers’ compensation system. There is one checklist for most med-legal exams, and a second checklist that focuses on psyche med-legal exams.
The checklists are available at this link: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/CaliforniaDWCCME.htm
A HELPFUL TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX
These checklists could really help avoid some of the common errors we see in med-legal reports, which lead the parties to set the depositions of med-legal evaluators.
When your humble blogger thinks back on flaws in QME reports, a few examples come to mind:
- The doctor says that a body part is industrial, but doesn’t explain the mechanism of causation, and ignores the fact that there are multiple specific and cumulative trauma dates of injury.
- A final medical report that says the whole person impairment is somewhere between 5% to 8% WPI, but doesn’t specify which number it is.
- Reports that don’t comment on temporary disability and work restrictions, despite the undersigned specifically asking for comment on those topics.
- No discussion of apportionment.
- Review of medical records that were not submitted by either party, and appear to be from a different case entirely.
- Asking for diagnostic tests, which are provided by the parties, only to ask for the same diagnostic tests in a later report.
If these checklists help doctors avoid those problems by using these checklists to write better reports, then all parties could benefit by having to do less discovery (ex: fewer supplemental reports, depositions, re-evaluations).
Likewise, attorneys could also use the checklists to prepare for doctor depositions and help make sure that their reports are substantial medical evidence. After all, if a case is set for trial and the judge only has sloppy medical reports that raise more questions than answers, that judge is going to cite McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2002) 67 CCC 138, 143 and reopen discovery to ask the med-legal experts more questions until their reporting is satisfactory.
Judges who issue decisions based on bad reports run the risk of being ordered by the Appeals Board to reopen the record and order more discovery until the reporting is substantial medical evidence. This result is disfavored by savvy judges and parties because it creates a lot more work for everyone.
Nobody wants to do unnecessary work, so it behooves the parties to try to get substantial medical evidence sooner than later.
SOUND FAMILIAR? HERE’S WHY …
If these checklists sound familiar to your, our audience, it’s probably because you are recalling the fact that the Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1293 into law 2025 – which would require the creation of a template form for QME reports. However, these specific checklists were not made in response to that bill, and were actually crafted while the bill was making its way through the Legislature. According to one of the authors of the checklists, they did not know for certain whether AB 1293 was going to be approved or not.
So while it’s fair to anticipate that the DWC will keep these checklists in mind as they craft regulations to supplement AB 1293, technically the checklists and AB 1293 were separate efforts in 2025.
Got a question about workers’ compensation defense issues or pending legislation? Feel free to contact John P. Kamin. Mr. Kamin is a workers’ compensation defense attorney and partner at Bradford & Barthel’s Woodland Hills location, where he monitors the recent legislative affairs as the firm’s Director of the Editorial Board. Mr. Kamin previously worked as a journalist for WorkCompCentral, where he reported on work-related injuries in all 50 states. Please feel free to contact John at jkamin@bradfordbarthel.com or at (818) 654-0411.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.