Castaneda, Andrea

Applicant Andrea Castaneda sought removal from a WCJ's Findings and Orders that denied her a remote psychiatric QME evaluation and ordered a replacement panel because the remaining psychiatric PQME, Dr. Steven Barnett, would only conduct evaluations remotely and defendant would not stipulate to a telehealth examination. The WCJ strictly applied AD Rule 46.3, finding that without all parties' written agreement, applicant was not entitled to a remote evaluation. The Appeals Board treated the petition as one for reconsideration (because the F&O contained final findings on employment and insurance coverage) and granted it. The Board held that AD Rule 46.3 is permissive—not exclusionary—and that a party seeking to strike a QME due to telehealth use must establish good cause under the framework articulated in Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria. Because the parties created no evidentiary record beyond a single stipulation, the Board could not determine whether good cause existed, rescinded the F&O, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.