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. ADJ10917207
Regular
Aug 13, 2019

CARMEN ROJO vs. K & M MEAT COMPANY, STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the necessity of an additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in orthopedic surgery. The Applicant sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order for a new orthopedic QME panel, arguing it was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the original QME's referral for an orthopedic evaluation was for treatment, not a recommendation for a new medical-legal evaluation. Consequently, the Board amended the ALJ's findings, holding there was no good cause for an additional orthopedic QME panel and denying the defendant's request.

QME panelorthopedic surgeryreconsiderationremovalFindings & Orderchiropractic QMEmedical-legal evaluationgood causesupplemental pleadingmedical dispute
References
9
Case No. ADJ11861160
Regular
Oct 25, 2019

ADRIANA MARTINEZ vs. AVITUS, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over the selection of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels for an applicant with claimed injuries to multiple body parts. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinded the prior decision, and found that the applicant's chiropractic QME panel request was proper while the defendant's orthopedic surgery panel request was improper. The WCAB determined that chiropractic medicine is the appropriate specialty and struck the orthopedic surgery panel, ordering the parties to proceed with the chiropractic QME. The WCAB clarified that while chiropractors cannot perform surgery or prescribe medication, they are qualified to evaluate injuries within their scope of practice.

QME panel disputeremoval petitionchiropractic specialtyorthopedic surgery specialtyLabor Code 4062.2Medical Directoradministrative law judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardproper panel selectioninvalid panel request
References
9
Case No. ADJ9683216
Regular
Sep 30, 2016

DUNIA DE LA CRUZ vs. SOOD ENTERPRISES, INC. dba JACK IN THE BOX, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY ADMINISTERED BY AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied defendant's petition for reconsideration and dismissed its petition for removal. The WCAB found that an additional Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) panel in rheumatology was appropriate to further develop the medical record on causation, as recommended by the initial orthopedic QME. Defendant argued the WCJ erred by ordering this without first determining applicant's credibility and AOE/COE, but the Board deemed the need for a rheumatological evaluation a critical issue justifying reconsideration. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the WCJ's order for an additional QME panel.

QME panelrheumatologyAOE/COEcredibilitymedical causationdepositionsupplemental evaluationgood causethreshold issuesreconsideration
References
17
Case No. ADJ11258859
Regular
Jan 23, 2020

Allen, Melanie vs. Stockton Unified School District

The Board rescinded the Finding of Fact, Order and Award due to the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) report's non-compliance with Labor Code section 4628. The QME falsely claimed to have personally reviewed all medical records when deposition testimony revealed a third party performed this task. This violation renders the QME's report inadmissible evidence. Consequently, the matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings, including potential re-trial and a new decision after a replacement QME evaluation or an agreed medical examiner. The WCJ must also address previously unresolved evidentiary issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of Fact Order and AwardQualified Medical ExaminerLabor Code section 4628medical-legal reportsubstantial evidenceinadmissible evidenceAgreed Medical Examinerappointed physician
References
0
Case No. ADJ8519763, ADJ8527545
Regular
Oct 28, 2014

SYLVIA KRESS vs. DALLCO, INC. and PROSIGHT GLOBAL, INC.

Defendant Prosight Global, Inc. petitioned for removal, challenging an order continuing a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) to address Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) replacement and medical record issues. Subsequent to the petition, the parties successfully resolved the QME dispute by agreeing to use an Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) and withdrew the QME replacement request at a later MSC. This resolution rendered the defendant's petition moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as the underlying issues were resolved by the parties.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAgreed Medical ExaminerMootDismissedProsight GlobalDallcoLWP Claims Solutions
References
0
Case No. ADJ8045455; ADJ8045600
Regular
Sep 14, 2012

ELSIE PENA CLARK ROSAS vs. SUTTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, SUTTER HEALTH

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to compel applicant's examination by the same Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) for two distinct injuries. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that separate QME panels are permissible for distinct injuries to different body parts. This ruling establishes that a second injury does not constitute a "new medical issue" or a "follow-up/supplemental evaluation" requiring the original QME. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to a new QME panel for the second injury.

Petition for RemovalPQMEMedical Unitdistinct injuriesbody partsnew medical issuefollow-up evaluationsupplemental evaluationsecond panel of QMEsLabor Code section 4062.3(j)
References
0
Case No. ADJ7436407, ADJ1895040 (FRE 0238028)
Regular
Feb 04, 2015

Colleen Newby vs. Fresno Community Medical Center, St. Agnes Medical Center, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Colleen Newby's Petition for Removal, upholding the denial of her petition to quash a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) request. The Board found that the prior employer, Fresno Community Medical Center, was authorized to file an application for adjudication of claim for Newby's subsequent employment with St. Agnes Medical Center. Crucially, the Board determined that a claim form is not a prerequisite for St. Agnes to request a QME panel in this specific scenario, where a second injury is claimed by a prior employer. Newby's due process claim was rejected as she had an opportunity to present her arguments on removal.

Petition for RemovalPetition to QuashQME RequestQualified Medical EvaluatorClaim FormDue ProcessAgreed Medical EvaluatorApplication for AdjudicationTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. ADJ7787692, ADJ7787693
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

Elizabeth Sauseda vs. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

This case involves the defendant's petition for removal, seeking to replace a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in psychology due to alleged reporting delays. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's recommendation, finding that a new QME examination would not proceed and the existing QME would remain. The issue of the defendant's personnel actions as a good faith defense remains for the trial judge's determination.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel QMEAdministrative Law JudgeSupplemental ReportReplacement QME PanelMandatory Settlement ConferenceGood Faith Personnel DefenseWCJ ReportMedical Unit
References
0
Case No. ADJ7294109
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

MANSOUREH AZIMZADEH vs. BURG & BROCK, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION CO.

This case involves an applicant challenging a Workers' Compensation Judge's decision to disregard the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports due to flawed apportionment analysis and ordering a new QME panel. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order for a new QME panel, and returned the matter for further development of the record. The Board agreed that the QME's reports lacked substantial medical evidence due to a misunderstanding of apportionment law and that further development with the same QME would be unhelpful. The Board emphasized that new medical-legal reporting would be necessary to properly weigh evidence.

RemovalReconsiderationPetitionPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMESubstantial Medical EvidenceApportionmentFindings and OrderMedical UnitDiscovery
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 10,160 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