# California QME vs Texas Designated Doctor | Content Hub > California QME vs Texas designated doctor: panel selection vs state appointment, AMA Guides 5th vs the commissioner edition, and presumptive weight. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/compare/ca-qme-vs-tx-dd/ --- [Content Hub](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/) › Compare ## California QME vs Texas Designated Doctor — State Program Comparison California QMEs are chosen through a 3-doctor panel with strikes; Texas designated doctors are appointed and trained by the Division — and Texas DD findings carry presumptive weight unless clearly rebutted. 1 section·3 sources·Verified 2026-08-15 ✓ ### What to compare - **Selection mechanics:** panel strikes (CA) vs state appointment (TX). - **Rating framework:** PDRS+AMA5 vs Texas RME rules. - **Report standard:** substantial medical evidence (CA) vs presumptive-weight DD report (TX). - **Telehealth:** Texas now allows MMI-by-telemedicine for minor injuries; California status unverified yet. Rating basis by jurisdiction — 10 states profiled [California — QME — Labor Code § 4660(b)(1) — **AMA Guides 5th** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/ca/) [Pennsylvania — IRE — 34 Pa. Code § 123.105; Act 142 — **AMA Guides 6th** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/pa/) [Tennessee — IR training — State-approved training list — **AMA Guides 6th** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/tn/) [Colorado — DIME — Rule 11 — **Edition set by agency** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/co/) [Ohio — IME / DME — BWC policy — **Edition set by agency** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/oh/) [Texas — Designated Doctor — 28 TAC 130.1 — **Edition set by agency** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/tx/) [Washington — IME — L&I Medical Examiners' Handbook — **Edition set by agency** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/wa/) [Florida — IRE / Schedule — 1996 Florida Impairment Rating Schedule — **State schedule, not AMA** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/fl/) [New York — IME / SLU — 2018 SLU guidelines — **State schedule, not AMA** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/ny/) [Arizona — DME — No canonical state source verified — **Not confirmed** ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/az/) California and Texas sit at opposite ends of the same problem. California fixes the edition in statute and lets the parties strike from a 3-name panel; Texas appoints the doctor and lets the commissioner set the edition. The other 8 jurisdictions profiled here fall somewhere between. ### Key facts | Selection | CA: 3-QME panel + strike process. TX: state-appointed designated doctor | | --- | --- | | Rating standard | CA: AMA 5th + 2005 PDRS. TX: commissioner-adopted edition | | Evidentiary weight | TX DD: presumptive weight. CA QME: substantial medical evidence standard | | Forms | CA: QME-100/105. TX: DWC-32, Report of Medical Evaluation | ### Sources - [CA DWC Medical Unit](https://dir.ca.gov/dwc/MedicalUnit/imchp.html) - [TDI DD program](https://agate.tdi.state.tx.us/wc/dd/index.html) - [8 CCR 9805](https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/8-CCR-9805) ### How Medrecords AI does this work Medrecords AI reads the same records these platforms handle. The difference is what comes back: a sorted, deduplicated file with a citation on every line, and a human deciding what it means. Judge it against the comparison above. [Solution — **Medical record review** — The review you were about to outsource, delivered as software — every line cited. Read more →](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/medical-record-review/?src=content-hub-ca-qme-vs-tx-dd) [Product — **Medical chronology** — A dated, deduplicated timeline with a citation on every entry. Read more →](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/?src=content-hub-ca-qme-vs-tx-dd) [Product — **Citations** — Every statement links back to the page and line it came from. Read more →](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/?src=content-hub-ca-qme-vs-tx-dd) Test it on a file you already have. Send one real record set. You get back a cited chronology and decide for yourself whether the read holds up — no obligation either way. [Test a file](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=content-hub-ca-qme-vs-tx-dd) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/?src=content-hub-ca-qme-vs-tx-dd) ### Explore the Content Hub [ #### Software & platforms AI and case-management platforms across medical-record review. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/software/) [ #### Service providers & BPOs IME, peer review, retrieval, and BPO providers. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/services/) [ #### State programs Rules, AMA Guides edition, and MMI standards by state. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/states/) [ #### Comparisons Head-to-head vendor and program comparisons. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/compare/) [ #### Guides Editorial reference on report writing, MMI, and validity testing. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/guides/) [ #### Conferences & events Workers' comp, claims, and IME conferences with editorial takes. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/events/) [ #### Directories Link-out rosters of examiners, LNCs, and expert witnesses. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/directory/) [ #### State matrix report All 10 verified state programs, side by side. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/reports/ime-state-matrix-2026/) [ #### Content Hub home The full index of everything in the hub. ](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/) Medrecords AI ### Minutes per file. Every line cited. 10¢ a page. Bring the hardest file from this page. Get a cited chronology and a report draft in minutes — every line traced to its source page, ready for your review and signature. - Minutes per file, not days - Every line cited to its source page - Flat 10¢/page, duplicates free — no license, no minimums - HIPAA-eligible · SOC 2 audit-ready [Test on a file](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=content-hub-ca-qme-vs-tx-dd) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) See how Medrecords AI compares with anything on this page — over a 30-minute call, side by side. Last verified: 2026-08-15