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. ADJ9834159 (MF) ADJ9834161
Regular
Jul 30, 2018

ESAU HERNANDEZ vs. D.L. BONE AND SONS PAINTING, ICW GROUP/EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to obtain a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel after the applicant initially objected to the timeliness of the original QME's report. The Appeals Board treated the defendant's petition as one for removal and denied it. The Board found that the defendant, having failed to timely object to the QME's report itself, could not rely on the applicant's subsequent objection to request a new panel. The Board concluded that the defendant's failure to act promptly meant they were not entitled to a replacement QME panel, and no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm warranting removal was demonstrated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelAdministrative Director RuleTimeliness objectionReplacement QME panelLabor CodeFindings of Fact
References
Case No. ADJ6754074
Regular
Dec 14, 2010

BARBARA JACOME vs. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, OLD REPUBLIC, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal challenging a WCJ's order granting the defendant's request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The applicant argued the defendant's objection to the QME's report timeliness was conditional and not properly served, thereby waiving their right to a replacement. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the defendant's objection, made after receiving the report, was insufficient and void. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to a replacement panel, and the QME's report was deemed admissible.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorReplacement PanelTimeliness ObjectionConditional ObjectionLabor Code SectionsCalifornia Code of RegulationsMedical DirectorAdministrative DirectorComprehensive Medical-Legal Evaluation
References
Case No. ADJ10885532
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

Carlos Valdiviezo vs. The Olympic Club, North River Insurance Company, Crum and Forster

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal. The applicant sought to obtain a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel after objecting to a non-Medical Provider Network (MPN) physician's report. However, the Board found that the applicant failed to comply with Labor Code section 4062.2 by not serving the objection on the defendant at least 16 days prior to requesting the QME panel. Consequently, the applicant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

RemovalFindings of Fact and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelMedical Provider NetworkMPNObjectionPrimary Treating PhysicianLabor CodeExpedited Hearing
References
Case No. ADJ815944
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

LINDALAIVAREZ vs. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal, upholding the WCJ's decision to deny a new QME panel. The applicant's attempt to obtain a new panel was deemed impermissible "doctor-shopping" by delaying objection to a late supplemental QME report until after receiving and reviewing it, and finding it favorable. The Board applied the principle that parties cannot exploit delays in medical reports for strategic advantage. Therefore, removal was denied as the conduct did not justify a new panel appointment.

Petition for RemovalQME panelmedical-legal reportdoctor-shoppinguntimely reportsupplemental reportobjectionwrit deniedAppeals Board panel decisionadministrative law judge
References
Case No. ADJ9163491; ADJ9163494
Regular
Jan 09, 2015

RIGOBERTO NORIEGA vs. BEST WESTERN TOWN & COUNTRY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal after the WCJ denied his objection to a QME's report. The applicant argued the QME report was untimely and prejudicial because it issued a zero impairment rating. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the applicant waived his objection by not requesting a replacement QME panel until after receiving the unfavorable report. The Board cited precedent preventing parties from waiting to see if a report is favorable before objecting to its timeliness. Commissioner Zalewski dissented, believing the applicant could object after receipt as long as the objection preceded the replacement panel request.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME reportuntimely filingservice of reportreplacement panelobjectionstatutory timeframesLabor CodeAdministrative Director Rule
References
Case No. ADJ8931511
Regular
Sep 04, 2014

DOUGLAS FEUTZ vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision. The applicant's attorney objected to a supplemental QME report being untimely, but did not request a new QME panel until after reviewing the report. The Board found this action constituted a waiver of the objection because the request was not made contemporaneously with the objection to the violation. Allowing such a delay would undermine efficient dispute resolution and permit doctor shopping.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental ReportPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEMedical UnitReplacement QME PanelTimely Supplemental ReportProcedural ViolationWaiverDoctor-Shopping
References
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
Case No. ADJ10321614
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

KURT SAALFELD vs. CITY OF TRACY

The Appeals Board denied applicant's Petition for Removal seeking a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. Applicant objected to defendant's letter to the QME via email, but defendant had previously informed applicant they do not accept email service. The Board found applicant's email objection improperly served as there was no agreement for electronic service. Therefore, the Board concluded that applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Rule 10505service by emailobjection to QME letterpeace officer
References
Case No. ADJ8668832
Regular

BACILIO ANGEL SALAZAR vs. SAN DIEGO PERSONNEL AND EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA for CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that deemed a QME report timely. The Board found Dr. Tahami's psychiatric evaluation report was untimely served on the defendant. As the defendant objected prior to receiving the report, they are entitled to a replacement QME panel in psychiatry.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME paneluntimely reportreplacement QMEAdministrative Director RuleLabor Codepsychiatric injurymedical-legal evaluationsubstantial prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ8173186
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

NATHAN LITTLE vs. DIVERSIFIED UTILITY SERVICES, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Nathan Little's Petition for Removal concerning a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) panel. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the QME process was initiated correctly under Labor Code section 4062.2 while the applicant was represented. Although the applicant later became unrepresented, the Board stated the original procedure should be followed for this QME panel. The denial means the applicant must proceed with the designated QME process.

Petition for RemovalQME PanelLabor Code section 4062.1Labor Code section 4062.2unrepresented applicantrepresented applicantsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmpanel QMEdermatology
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,730 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