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. ADJ7232076
Significant
Nov 04, 2011

TSEGAY MESSELE vs. PITCO FOODS, INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration on its own motion to clarify that its prior en banc decision regarding the timeline for selecting a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) will apply prospectively to panel requests made after September 26, 2011, to avoid disrupting ongoing cases.

AME proposalQME panelLabor Code section 4062.2(b)prospective applicationclerical error correctionreconsideration on motionen banc decisionDWC NewslineCalifornia Applicants' Attorneys Associationprematurity objection
References
6
Case No. ADJ7232076
Regular
Nov 22, 2011

TSEGAY MESSELE vs. PITCO FOODS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a prior en banc decision that clarified timelines for selecting Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs) and Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels. Due to confusion and potential for reopening cases, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion. The Board ultimately modified its prior decision to apply prospectively from September 26, 2011, preventing challenges to previously obtained QME panels based on prematurity unless timely objected to before that date. This modification aims to avoid widespread reopening and preserve settlements based on prior interpretations.

WCABen bancreconsiderationprospective applicationQME panelagreed medical evaluatorAMEprematurityLabor Code section 4062.2(b)DWC Newsline
References
3
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Nov 04, 2011

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

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration on its own motion to make its prior September 26, 2011 decision, concerning the timelines for QME panel requests, apply prospectively to prevent disruption in ongoing cases.

Appeals Board MotionReconsiderationNotice of IntentionModify OpinionClerical ErrorAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel RequestLabor Code section 4062.2(b)Prospective Application
References
5
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
16
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Nov 22, 2011

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

The Appeals Board amends its September 26, 2011 decision, clarifying that its rulings on the timelines for selecting medical evaluators (AME/QME) apply prospectively to prevent reopening previously settled cases.

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDEN BANCRECONSIDERATIONAGREED MEDICAL EVALUATORAMEQUALIFIED MEDICAL EVALUATORQMEPANELLABOR CODE SECTION 4062.2(B)PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
References
9
Case No. ADJ7232076
Significant
Nov 04, 2011

TSEGAY MESSELE vs. PITCO FOODS, INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board amends its prior decision of September 26, 2011, clarifying that the principles regarding the timeline for selecting medical evaluators (AME/QME) will apply prospectively from that date to prevent disruption in ongoing cases.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn BancReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 4062.2(b)Prospective ApplicationStatutory InterpretationMedical UnitPanel Request
References
9
Case No. ADJ7232076
Significant
Sep 26, 2011

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

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, held that the timeframe for seeking agreement on an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) under Labor Code section 4062.2(b) is extended by five calendar days when the initial proposal is served by mail. Consequently, it found that both the applicant's and the defendant's requests for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel were premature and rescinded the prior finding.

QME panelagreed medical evaluatorLabor Code 4062.2Code of Civil Procedure 1013WCAB Rule 10507service by mailtime computationremovalen banc decisionmedical evaluation
References
24
Showing 1-7 of 7 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