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. ADJ8381652
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

CARLOS CABRERA RAZO vs. LAS POSAS COUNTRY CLUB, HARTFORD INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns the timeliness of an applicant's strike from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Appeals Board vacated its previous grant of reconsideration, dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, and denied their Petition for Removal. The Board determined that Labor Code section 4062.2, as amended by SB 863 effective January 1, 2013, applies to pending matters, including this case with a 2012 date of injury. Applying the amended statute and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a), the applicant had 15 days from the Administrative Director's assignment of the QME panel to strike a name. The applicant's strike on the 12th day was therefore timely, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4062.2(c)Senate Bill 863Administrative DirectorCumulative Trauma InjuryQME Panel AssignmentCode of Civil Procedure 1013
References
6
Case No. ADJ6843599
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

MICHAEL FREITAS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the Findings and Order striking the Agreed Medical Evaluator's report was an interim procedural order, not a final decision on the merits. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the order. The defendant's contention that the striking of a supplemental report was improper was not persuasive, as the AME's own delay contributed to the issue. A subsequent order corrected a clerical error regarding the date of the Board's initial decision.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Rule 38Untimely ReportStriking AMEInterim Procedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5310
References
11
Case No. ADJ1029045 (LAO 0790607)
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

ELVIRA CABRAL vs. ACCURIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the administrative law judge's (WCJ) order striking Dr. Windler's reports was an evidentiary ruling, not a final order dispositive of substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for this extraordinary remedy. The WCAB concluded the WCJ's report sufficiently explained the bases for striking the reports, curing any technical defect regarding Labor Code section 5313. Therefore, the applicant's request to overturn the ruling on Dr. Windler's reports was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalsubstantial evidenceDr. Windler's reportsstricken from the recordnon-industrial personal injuryLabor Code section 5313final orderadmissibility of evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ1732179 (LBO 0394128)
Regular
Feb 15, 2011

LISA WLADKOWSKI vs. BALL METAL CONTAINER CORP.; DISCOVERY MANAGERS, administered by SPECIALITY RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order that struck a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report due to an allegedly excessive deposition fee. However, the Board granted the defendant's alternative petition for removal. The Board found no legal basis to strike a QME's report solely because their deposition fee exceeds the presumptive statutory rate. Consequently, the original order striking the report was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEdeposition testimonyexcessive feemedical legal fee schedulestriking medical reportpetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalevidentiary order
References
5
Case No. ADJ8022096
Regular
Apr 09, 2013

CLISE MARTINEZ vs. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTER, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision. The Applicant sought to strike a Qualified Medical Examiner's report and obtain a replacement panel, alleging violations of administrative regulations regarding notice periods and office standards. The Board found that the Applicant's motion was untimely, having been filed after the QME report was issued, and that the alleged violations did not warrant a replacement panel, especially as they appeared to be attempts at "doctor shopping." Therefore, both the Petition for Reconsideration and the Petition for Removal were denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMedical-Legal EvaluationQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Panel QMEReplacement Panel
References
10
Case No. ADJ3514782 (VNO 0144032), ADJ918354 (VNO 0144033)
Regular
Oct 08, 2012

Ellen Braswell vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petitions for Reconsideration because they were filed from interlocutory orders, not final decisions determining substantive rights. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the applicant's Petitions for Removal as she failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Both petitions sought to strike a QME report, which is not a final appealable order. Consequently, the WCAB upheld the WCJ's findings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinding and OrderQME Panelapplicant in propria personafinal ordersubstantive rightinterlocutoryprocedural decision
References
6
Case No. ADJ6626132
Regular
Jan 21, 2011

IMELDA DELACRUZ LOPEZ vs. PACIFIC BELL; SEDGWICK 51460 ONTARIO

The defendant sought reconsideration and removal of a WCJ's order denying their petition to strike a Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not a final one. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's arguments regarding the QME report's evidentiary value and due process were not considered due to procedural deficiencies.

WCABADJ6626132Pacific BellSedgwickPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrderPetition to Strike QME PanelDr. Sanatharasubstantial evidence
References
5
Case No. ADJ7407298
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

MARTHA PRETALIA vs. WARNER BROTHERS

Defendant Warner Brothers sought reconsideration or removal after the WCJ denied their motion to strike applicant's medical reports. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not final, and denied the Petition for Removal as defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board also declined to impose sanctions against the defendant. The defendant's argument regarding Labor Code section 4062.2 was not addressed as the primary issue was the procedural nature of the petitions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrderMotion to StrikeMedical ReportsLabor Code section 4062.2Agreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ133550 (LAO 0865174)
Regular
Mar 04, 2011

DAVID MENDEZ vs. COAST HEAT TREATING CO., ZENITH WOODLAND HILLS

The Applicant sought reconsideration and removal of an order denying his petition to strike a doctor's report, arguing a certified interpreter was required for a Spanish-speaking claimant during a medical examination. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the order was not final. The Board denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and noting the issue of the report's admissibility is reserved for trial. The Applicant failed to provide proof of allegations or file a Declaration of Readiness regarding discovery issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJcertified interpretermedical examinationnon-English speaking workersubstantial evidencediscovery issuesevidentiary issues
References
7
Case No. ADJ8796181
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

JEFFREY HORDWEDEL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as it challenged an interim order, not a final decision. Removal was granted because the WCJ's denial of the applicant's petition to strike an IME report, based on procedural grounds, could cause significant prejudice. The case is returned to the trial level for a hearing to determine whether the dispute resolution agreement requires the Labor-Management Committee to address the applicant's ex parte communication claims first, or if the WCAB should proceed on the merits of the petition. The WCJ will then issue a decision based on the developed record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgePetition to Strike IME Medical-Legal ReportLabor-Management Workers' Compensation Dispute Resolution AgreementIndependent Medical ExaminerEx Parte CommunicationLabor Management CommitteeScope of Agreement
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 14,519 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