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. ADJ356153 (LAO 0887403)
Regular
May 21, 2009

SANTIAGO IBARRA vs. ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed defendant ABM Industries' Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling a new QME panel was interlocutory, not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB also denied defendant's request for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's prior order had denied defendant's request to compel a medical evaluation and ordered a new QME panel due to concerns about defendant's advocacy letter to the original QME. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning, deeming the interlocutory procedural order not subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardABM IndustriesInc.ESISSantiago IbarraPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME paneladvocacy letter
References
Case No. ADJ11262392
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ vs. REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, EXCEL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order. However, the WCAB granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken because the record was incomplete, lacking crucial medical records and evidence of service, preventing meaningful review and a proper decision. The WCAB emphasized the need for a developed record and encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute regarding the advocacy letter informally.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQME advocacy letterSanctionsFindings and Notice of IntentInterlocutory orderFinal orderAdmitted evidence
References
Case No. ADJ7626422
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

JOSE AHUMADA vs. BUILDING MATERIALS HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it sought review of an interlocutory order, not a final decision. However, the WCAB granted removal on its own motion to address the WCJ's order. This order, which directed the parties to obtain a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), was rescinded because the issue was moot after the defendant canceled the deposition and the PQME became available within the statutory timeframe. The WCAB cautioned the defendant for seeking reconsideration of a non-final procedural order.

PQMEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Orderdepositionreplacement PQMEinterlocutory orderremovalrescindedmoot issuevocational expert
References
Case No. ADJ7674144
Regular
Oct 21, 2015

CHERYL FRANK vs. NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior decision finding that most alleged industrial stressors leading to the applicant's psyche injury claim were not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The WCAB upheld the administrative law judge's (WCJ) determination that the panel Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) reports lacked substantial evidence and removed the PQME. The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for removal, finding reconsideration to be the appropriate remedy and giving significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injuryindustrial stressorLabor Code section 3208.3(d)removalQualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEsubstantial evidencecredibility determinationsPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8898297
Regular
Mar 27, 2015

MARY ROBY-LEWIS vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves the County of Sacramento's attempt to overturn an order striking their chosen Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) and a consulting physician. The defendant argued this order caused irreparable harm and that the applicant waived objections by delaying their request. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as untimely because the order wasn't final, but granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order. The majority found the applicant's objections lacked merit and that denying removal would cause prejudice, while a dissenting opinion argued the defendant failed to comply with procedural rules regarding document submission to the PQME.

PQMEPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Striking PQMELabor Code Section 4062.3(b)Panel Qualified Medical ExaminerWCJ OrderApplicantDefendantSubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ886832 (VNO 0463817) ADJ7239162 ADJ7559804
Regular
Apr 17, 1977

MARGOT LOWE vs. SAV-ON DRUGS and SEDGWICK CMS, CVS and GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Appeals Board dismissed Sav-On Drugs' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This denial does not preclude Sav-On from raising its objections in a future petition for reconsideration of a final decision. The Board specifically noted that the disputed advocacy letter to the Agreed Medical Evaluator did not appear to affect the AME's findings.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenying RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderAgreed Medical EvaluatorAdvocacy LetterLabor Code Section 4062.3Substantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ10887066 ADJ10887074
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

RAUL JUAREZ vs. EB DESIGN, INC., THE HARTFORD INSURANCE

This case concerns defendant's ex parte communication with a QME, specifically sending surveillance video and an advocacy letter without proper notice. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the trial judge's order striking the QME report, and remanded the case. The Board clarified that WCAB Rule 10507 extends the timeframe for applicant to object to non-medical records, but not the defendant's initial service deadline under Labor Code section 4062.3(b).

RemovalJoint Findings of FactOrder and Opinion on DecisionQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelorthopedic surgerystrickeninadmissibleLabor Code section 4062.3ex parte communication
References
Case No. ADJ13119496
Regular
Sep 29, 2025

Ariel Prudente vs. RJP Framing, Inc., Alaska National Insurance Company

Applicant Ariel Prudente sought removal of a WCJ's order to replace psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) Dr. Peter Turek. The WCJ's decision stemmed from applicant's attorney providing "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" to Dr. Turek, which was deemed a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(b). The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order lacked sufficient rationale and evidence of prejudice to justify Dr. Turek's replacement. Consequently, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's June 18, 2025 Findings and Order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for less drastic measures than QME replacement.

PQMEPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Kite decisionsVigil v. County of KernSuon v. California DairiesMaxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitationex parte communicationsubstantial justiceAOE/COE
References
Case No. ADJ9795000
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

JACQUITA HUNTLEY vs. A.H. 2005 MANAGEMENT, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought removal of a WCJ's finding that the defendant's request for a Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) was valid. Applicant argued her prior PQME request and the defendant's failure to attach proper documentation invalidated their request. The Board denied the removal petition, adopting the WCJ's report which noted the applicant stipulated to the invalidity of her own PQME request. Furthermore, the Board admonished applicant's attorneys for making false statements and potentially violating Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Labor Code section 4061Rule 31.1StipulationTreating PhysicianOrthopedic Surgical PanelChiropractic PQMEBad Faith ActionsFrivolous Tactics
References
Case No. ADJ7253987
Regular
Jun 29, 2012

Anna Medel vs. Employment Development Department, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order granting the applicant a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME). The defendant argued their communication with the PQME was not an ex parte violation and that the objection was untimely. The Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the order was procedural, not final. The Board denied the removal petition, agreeing that the defendant's communication violated Labor Code Section 4062.3 by failing to serve the applicant 20 days prior to the PQME evaluation. Therefore, the applicant was correctly awarded a new PQME panel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMESection 4062.3Ex Parte CommunicationReconsiderationRemovalCumulative Trauma InjuryCervical SpineBilateral Upper Extremities
References
Showing 1-10 of 623 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