CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ15951486, ADJ15951487
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

JEFF CRAIL vs. AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant, Amtrust North America and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a Joint Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued on May 20, 2025. The F&O had ordered the replacement of Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) Dr. Wiseman due to his failure to properly serve his report. The defendant argued that the court improperly interpreted Administrative Director Rule 31.5(a)(12) and that a Declaration of Readiness (DOR) does not constitute both an objection and a request for a replacement panel. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision to replace Dr. Wiseman. The Board's decision cited its en banc ruling in Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria, reinforcing that a QME's failure to timely issue and serve a report, and engaging in ex parte communication by serving only one party, grants a party the right to seek replacement. The Board also emphasized the informal nature of pleadings in workers' compensation proceedings, as established in Perez v. Chicago Dogs, when addressing the applicant's DOR.

PQMEPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and OrdersAdministrative Director RuleDeclaration of ReadinessIrreparable HarmMandatory Settlement ConferenceOncology PanelQualified Medical ExaminerProof of Service
References
14
Case No. ADJ8233060, ADJ8237202
Regular
Aug 23, 2013

SYLVIA TORRES vs. TODD MACKEY dba CAREFREE PLANTS & DESIGN, PREFERRED EMPLOYER'S INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order regarding a replacement panel was not a final decision. The Board denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, despite the PQME's late supplemental report. Applicant failed to formally request a replacement panel from the Medical Director as required by regulation. Therefore, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision not to order a replacement panel and to schedule a supplemental evaluation with the original PQME.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMESupplemental ReportFindings of Fact and OrderWCJDeclaration of ReadinessReplacement Panel
References
5
Case No. ADJ752333
Regular
Jul 25, 2011

RICARDO RIVERA vs. COLOR SPOT NURSERIES, INC., CHARITIS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case concerns applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order denying his objection to a replacement orthopedic QME panel. The WCJ allowed the orthopedic panel after finding the defendant had substantially complied with regulations for requesting a specialty change. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the reconsideration petition as the order was interlocutory and denied removal, finding no irreparable harm or prejudice to the applicant. The WCAB upheld the WCJ's decision, deeming the change in specialty appropriate and the defendant's compliance sufficient under the circumstances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical DirectorOrthopedicsChiropracticLabor CodeIndustrial InjuryLeft Knee
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ9561124
Regular
Jan 05, 2018

MARIO GUTIERREZ vs. MOLYCORP MINERALS, ZURICH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the administrative law judge's order denying a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was not a final order. Applicant sought a new panel after the current QME's deposition was rescheduled due to a personal emergency, arguing the QME failed to appear within 120 days. The Board found the specific circumstances of the delay were not a listed ground for a replacement QME panel under the regulations. Furthermore, the Board denied the applicant's request for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderdepositionMedical UnitAdministrative Law Judgeinternal medicineapplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ16326594
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

Peter Pham vs. Southern California Edison

Defendant sought removal of a WCJ's December 12, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), which denied their motion for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued that the applicant's email to the QME constituted impermissible ex parte contact. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the F&O, and substituting new Findings of Fact that the email was indeed impermissible ex parte contact, thereby ordering a replacement QME panel. Additionally, while earlier QME reports and deposition testimony by Dr. Weiss remain in evidence, her report dated July 22, 2023, was stricken to preserve the appearance of impartiality in the medical evaluation process.

Ex parte contactQualified Medical EvaluatorRemoval petitionFindings of Fact and OrderLabor Code Section 4062.3Appearance of impartialityMedical evaluation processReplacement QME panelPsychiatric injuryStipulated facts
References
14
Case No. ADJ10030458
Regular
Mar 12, 2019

Rachel Osorio vs. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

This case involves applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the applicant's request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel, finding that the original QME's failure to serve the applicant directly with his report, despite serving her attorney, constituted substantial compliance. The Board reasoned that the applicant was not significantly prejudiced as she retained rights for further discovery and that a replacement panel was not warranted. Ultimately, the WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior order.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAgilent TechnologiesInc.Sedgwick Claims Management ServicesRachel OsorioFindings and OrderInjury AOE/COEBilateral Hands and WristsQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Substantial Compliance
References
8
Case No. ADJ14778693
Regular
Oct 29, 2025

DARRELL DICKERSON vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study legal and factual issues. Defendant sought reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the WCJ, which denied a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel and affirmed Dr. Lucas Campos as the valid QME. The Board applied a removal standard to the interlocutory finding challenged by the petitioner and found that significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was denied. Consequently, the Board rescinded the F&O and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically to reconsider whether good cause exists to order a replacement QME panel, in light of the Vazquez case factors.

PQMEAD Rule 31.3(e)AD Rule 31.5(a)(2)replacement panelreevaluationunavailabilityAppeals Boardremoval standardthreshold issueinterlocutory issue
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 33,575 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational