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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
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 The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinded the prior decision, and found that the applicant's chiropractic QME panel request was proper while the defendant's orthopedic surgery panel request was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
Case No. ADJ9623223
Regular
Aug 04, 2015

KORI HARDING vs. ABM INDUSTRIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that an applicant was entitled to a chiropractic QME panel. The Board found the defendant's objection and request for an orthopedic QME panel did not comply with Rule 31.5(10) as the Medical Unit did not determine the initial specialty was "medically or otherwise inappropriate for the disputed medical issue(s)." Newly discovered evidence of disc herniation was deemed insufficient to change this outcome, as the initial determination was flawed. The WCAB affirmed the original award directing use of the chiropractic QME panel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorQME PanelMedical UnitPrimary Treating PhysicianChiropractic CareOrthopedicsRule 31.5(10)Industrial InjuryReplacement Panel
References
Case No. ADJ12347424
Regular
Nov 09, 2020

DANIELLE LOOMIS-LYONS vs. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO

This case concerns applicant Danielle Loomis-Lyons' injury to her right knee. The WCJ initially found injury AOE/COE, ordered a replacement QME panel in orthopedic surgery, and deemed the prior pain management QME report inadmissible. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the injury finding and the need for a replacement panel, but corrected the panel specialty to pain medicine. The Board rescinded findings regarding the appropriate panel specialty due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.

QME panelpain managementorthopedic surgeryAOE/COEinadmissible reportPetition for ReconsiderationremovalLabor Code section 4062.1AD Rule 31.3AD Rule 31.5
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
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
Case No. ADJ11913752
Regular
Nov 19, 2019

LAURA DOW vs. UCSF, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a dispute over the proper procedure for requesting a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel after a workers' compensation claim was denied. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal, reversing a WCJ's decision. The WCAB found that the defendant's request for an orthopedic surgery QME panel was valid, initiated after the denial notice and statutory waiting period. They also determined that orthopedic surgery was an appropriate specialty, overriding the WCJ's order for a pain medicine panel. The parties are now directed to proceed with the orthopedic surgery QME panel.

QME panelPetition for RemovalOpinion and OrderFindings and OrdersMedical UnitPain MedicineOrthopedic SurgeryDenial NoticeQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4060
References
Case No. ADJ8182717, ADJ8253375, ADJ8253377
Regular
May 18, 2018

VICTOR MCGILL vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a judge's decision invalidating a chiropractic QME panel. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the judge's order was not a final determination. However, the Board granted removal, finding that an orthopedic QME panel was necessary for the applicant's foot and Achilles tendon injuries, as chiropractic was not the appropriate specialty. The decision rescinds the judge's order and returns the matter for further proceedings to obtain an additional orthopedic QME evaluation.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationQMEMedical DirectorChiropracticOrthopedic SurgeryPanelFindings of Fact and OrderMedical Unit
References
Case No. ADJ7661001
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

ADRIAN ZAMORA vs. ROOFING SUPPLY GROUP, LLC, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to rescind an order that took the matter off calendar pending the Medical Unit's action on a replacement QME panel request. The defendant claimed untimeliness and violations regarding QME reports and repeatedly requested a new panel from the Medical Unit without response. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and noting the Medical Unit had no record of the defendant's requests.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQME PanelMedical UnitOff CalendarIndustrial InjuryLoaderOrthopedicsTimely ReportsStatutory Violations
References
Case No. ADJ9950339
Regular
Jan 05, 2017

JAMES GARZA vs. OREILLYS AUTO PARTS, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied James Garza's Petition for Removal because it found the WCJ's determination that the orthopedic panel was correct was within the WCAB's jurisdiction. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result, and reconsideration is an inadequate remedy. The WCAB was not persuaded that these conditions were met. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalMedical Unit PanelOrthopedic PanelJurisdictionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,642 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