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. ADJ10015666, ADJ12280547
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

YGNACIO PONCE vs. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, EARTHBOUND FARMS

Applicant Ygnacio Ponce sought reconsideration of Findings and Orders issued on July 19, 2021, which found that he did not sustain injury to several body parts and was not entitled to additional QME panels for internal medicine and psychology. Ponce specifically contended the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) erred in denying a QME to determine if he sustained a psyche injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the F&O, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support causation for the alleged psyche injury and that the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking a QME panel within the mandated discovery period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrdersMaterial HandlerRight Shoulder InjuryPermanent StationaryNew and Further DisabilityQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Petition to ReopenPsyche Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ11629744
Regular
Apr 24, 2023

ROCHELLE BOYD vs. VISSER, NATIONAL INTERSTATE RICHFIELD

The applicant sought reconsideration after the WCJ denied injury claims to the brain, internal system, psyche, and sexual dysfunction, as well as the issuance of additional QME panels. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding good cause existed for additional QME panels in internal medicine and psychiatry. The original findings of fact were rescinded, and the issue of further QME panels in urology and neurology was deferred. The Board concluded that additional QME evaluations were necessary for a full adjudication of the claimed injuries outside of the admitted orthopedic injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelsinternal medicinepsychiatryneurologyurologysexual dysfunctionpsyche
References
3
Case No. ADJ6627019
Regular
May 06, 2013

SANDRA BERKENSTOCK vs. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order denying their request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in psychiatry/psychology. The applicant sustained industrial injuries including to her psyche. The administrative law judge denied the replacement panel because the QME's report was eventually received. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition. The Board ruled that the denial of a replacement QME panel is an interim, procedural order not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a).

WCABAgilent TechnologiesADJ6627019Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpsychiatrypsychologyFlorence Thomas-RiddleLabor Code section 139.2(j)(1)(A)
References
7
Case No. ADJ10310553, ADJ10310557
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

JOSE ESPINOSA vs. SECCOMBE HOMES, INC., dba NORTH STAR CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's denial of a psychiatry QME panel, finding the order interlocutory. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, recognizing that denying a psychiatric QME panel irreparably harmed the applicant's ability to conduct necessary medical-legal discovery regarding his psyche claim. The Board amended the Joint Findings and Award to find good cause for an additional QME panel in psychiatry and granted the applicant's request. This decision allows for proper evaluation of the applicant's psychiatric complaints and potential permanent impairment rating, especially given Labor Code §4660.1's nuances for post-2013 injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings and AwardQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)good causepsychiatric injurypermanent impairment ratingLabor Code §4660.1
References
0
Case No. ADJ18210611
Regular
May 08, 2025

ELENITA JOVER vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Elenita Jover, a licensed vocational nurse, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award that denied her request for additional Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panels. The initial F&A found injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine, shoulders, and right thumb, but not to other claimed body parts like stress, psyche, or internal systems. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the original F&A, and ordered additional QME panels for pulmonology, internal medicine (diabetes), ophthalmology, ENT, and neurology, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was based on the original QME's recommendation for further evaluations and the need to develop the evidentiary record to ensure substantial justice.

Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluationLicensed Vocational NurseArising out of and in the course of employmentPermanent DisabilityDue ProcessPulmonologistInternistOphthalmologistOtolaryngologist
References
7
Case No. ADJ7532290
Regular
Aug 28, 2012

MAXINE BROWN VIRGIL vs. LUNCH STOP, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE

This case involves a dispute over obtaining a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant requested a new panel because a QME on the initial panel could not provide an appointment within 60 days. However, the applicant failed to properly strike a physician from the original panel after the defendant did. As a result, the defendant was authorized to schedule an appointment with a remaining physician, and the applicant was not entitled to a new QME panel. The Appeals Board granted removal to amend the prior order to reflect a rescheduled appointment with the original QME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorpanelstrikeLabor Code section 4062Administrative Director Rule 31.5section 4062.2(c)medical evaluatorappointment
References
1
Case No. ADJ12557876
Regular
Nov 04, 2020

VERONICA MADRIGAL vs. MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

Here is a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order denying their petition for a new QME panel and finding their objections to the existing panel harmless error. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing that the applicant's counsel's communication with the QME, while a technical violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(b), did not result in prejudice warranting a new panel. The Board also found the defendant waived their right to object to the QME's report by relying on it to terminate temporary disability benefits. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide evidence that the original QME panel was improperly issued, thus failing to prove entitlement to a new orthopedic panel.

QME panelLabor Code section 4062.3ex parte communicationadvocacy letterharmless errorstipulated findings and orderremovalreconsiderationmedical evaluatoragreed medical evaluator
References
5
Case No. ADJ12550205
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

OLGA PLASCENCIA vs. ADECCO USA, INC

This case involves a dispute over a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel request. The applicant sought a chiropractic QME panel, while the defendant later denied liability for certain injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior ruling and returned the case to the trial judge. This decision was based on the need to further develop the record regarding the applicant's DWC-1 form filing and the effect of the defendant's partial acceptance of liability on the QME panel process. The WCAB emphasized that the validity of the QME panel needs resolution before further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderDelay LetterMedical EvaluationQME PanelChiropracticOrthopedicLabor Code Section 4060Causation Dispute
References
5
Case No. ADJ12910087
Regular
Dec 28, 2020

ESTHER LEMUS SALDANA vs. TAO TAI HOMES CORPORATION, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns a dispute over the correct Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel for applicant Esther Lemus Saldana. The defendant sought reconsideration of an order finding the applicant's chiropractic QME panel valid and the defendant's orthopedic panel invalid. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The Board found the applicant properly requested a new panel after retaining counsel, and despite a service error on the chiropractic panel, the defendant had opportunity to contest the specialty. Therefore, the applicant's chiropractic QME panel remains the correct one for the medical-legal evaluation.

QME PanelChiropractic QMEOrthopedic QMEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersMedical-Legal EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorAdministrative Director RuleRomero v. Costco WholesaleLabor Code Section 4062.1
References
9
Case No. ADJ6816825
Regular
Jun 14, 2010

KAI CHRISTOPHER vs. TIME WARNER CABLE, ESIS

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, finding the WCJ erred in denying a QME panel request. This denial was based on Administrative Director Rule 30(d)(3), which previously stated only the employee could request a QME panel after a total denial of injury. However, the Board's recent en banc decision in *Mendoza v. Huntington Hospital* invalidated this rule as conflicting with Labor Code sections 4060(c) and 4062.2, which allow either party to request a QME panel. Therefore, the prior order was rescinded, and the matter returned to the trial level with instructions to issue a QME panel.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Administrative Director RuleInvalid RuleMendoza v. Huntington HospitalLabor Code sections 4060(c)Labor Code sections 4062.2Denial of InjuryEither Party RequestMedical Director
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,692 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