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. 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
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. ADJ9581070; ADJ10207290
Regular
Sep 12, 2016

LETICIA ORNELAS vs. NORTHSTAR GROUP SERVICES, INC., NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration or removal of a prior order. The WCAB affirmed the finding that Dr. David Teicheira was the properly designated Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) for the applicant's cumulative trauma claim. This decision was based on the understanding that a new QME panel is validly obtained for a subsequent claim, even if an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) was previously used for a different injury. The prior AME agreement did not preclude the use of a QME for the distinct cumulative trauma claim.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationQME PanelAgreed Medical EvaluatorCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryFindings and OrderWCJLabor CodeNavarro v. City of Montebello
References
Case No. ADJ1211801
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

GUISELA REYNOSO vs. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, CNA CLAIMPLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's decision denying a replacement QME was an intermediate procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights. The defendant sought a new panel after the QME allegedly violated a regulation by evaluating the applicant at an unlisted address and missed a deposition. The Board found the defendant's objection to the evaluation was untimely and that the request for a new panel appeared to be an attempt to "doctor shop" after receiving unfavorable reports. Even if considered for removal, the petition would be denied due to the unreasonable delay in raising objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelindustrial injuryspider bitesecurity guardreplacement paneldepositiondiscovery ordersfinal order
References
Case No. ADJ6710001 (ANA) MF ADJ7803228 (ANA) ADJ8017966 (ANA) ADJ8064588 (ANA) ADJ8262934 (ANA) ADJ9093396 (ANA) ADJ9076943 (ANA) ADJ9083545 (SDO) ADJ6925792 (ANA) ADJ8907815 (ANA) ADJ8819925 (ANA) ADJ9087879 (ANA) ADJ9093460 (ANA) ADJ8443963 (ANA) ADJ6829099 (ANA) ADJ6843222 (ANA)
Regular
May 07, 2015

LARRY WATKINS, GORDON BELL, DANIEL BUGGS, JAMES STIENKE, WILLIAM BRYANT, RONALD JOHNSON, ROBERT HYLAND, WALKER GILLETTE, REGGIE RUCKER, ANDREW SELFRIDGE, DOUG VAN HORN, ANANIAS CARSON, JACK GREGORY, THOMAS MULLEN, WILLIE YOUNG, JOHN HICKS vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the New York State Insurance Fund's (NYSIF) liability for workers' compensation claims filed by former New York Giants employees. NYSIF argued it was not liable due to sovereign immunity and limitations in its New York-centric insurance policies. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the Arbitrator's decision, finding that Coverage B of the policy broadly indemnified the Giants for employee injuries sustained "wherever such injuries may be sustained," without clear exclusionary language. This coverage extended despite NYSIF's arguments about its New York origin and lack of authorization to write insurance in California. The Board also deferred the jurisdictional question for individual claims to the Workers' Compensation Judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNew York State Insurance FundNew York Giantssovereign immunitycomitycoverageextraterritorial injuriesinsurance policy interpretationCoverage Bbusiness operations
References
Case No. ADJ11062244
Regular
Sep 25, 2018

MIKE RIZZO vs. PROPARK INC.; NOVA CASUALTY, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the judge's order denying a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. This decision stems from the applicant's ex parte communication with the existing QME, which violated Labor Code section 4062.3. The Board found this violation warrants a new QME panel to ensure impartiality, as prejudice need not be shown. The parties are now ordered to select a new QME, with all other issues deferred.

Ex parte communicationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Petition for RemovalRescind OrdersNew QME panelLabor Code section 4062.3Temporary Disability (TD)Medical-legal discoveryAdjudication Management System (EAMS)Employment Development Department (EDD)
References
Case No. ADJ6710001 (ANA) MF ADJ7803228 (ANA) ADJ8017966 (ANA) ADJ8064588 (ANA) ADJ8262934 (ANA) ADJ9093396 (ANA) ADJ9076943 (ANA) ADJ9083545 (SDO) ADJ6925792 (ANA) ADJ8907815 (ANA) ADJ8819925 (ANA) ADJ9087879 (ANA) ADJ9093460 (ANA) ADJ8443963 (ANA) ADJ6829099 (ANA) ADJ6843222 (ANA)
Regular
May 07, 2015

LARRY WATKINS, GORDON BELL, DANIEL BUGGS, JAMES STIENKE, WILLIAM BRYANT, RONALD JOHNSON, ROBERT HYLAND, WALKER GILLETTE, REGGIE RUCKER, ANDREW SELFRIDGE, DOUG VAN HORN, ANANIAS CARSON, JACK GREGORY, THOMAS MULLEN, WILLIE YOUNG, JOHN HICKS vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an Arbitrator's decision finding the New York State Insurance Fund (NYSIF) liable for workers' compensation claims against the New York Giants. Despite NYSIF's claims of sovereign immunity and limitations to New York coverage, the Board found that the policy's Coverage B provided indemnity for injuries sustained by employees "wherever such injuries may be sustained." The Board emphasized that insurance policy exclusions must be clear, and NYSIF failed to demonstrate any such limitations for injuries occurring outside New York, especially given the team's extensive operations outside the state. The Board also noted that NYSIF's contentions regarding California jurisdiction would be determined on a claim-by-claim basis.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNew York State Insurance FundNew York GiantsSovereign ImmunityComityCalifornia JurisdictionCoverage BOut-of-State InjuriesInsurance Policy LimitationsIndemnify
References
Case No. ADJ11861160
Regular
Oct 25, 2019

ADRIANA MARTINEZ vs. AVITUS, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over the selection of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels for an applicant with claimed injuries to multiple body parts. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinded the prior decision, and found that the applicant's chiropractic QME panel request was proper while the defendant's orthopedic surgery panel request was improper. The WCAB determined that chiropractic medicine is the appropriate specialty and struck the orthopedic surgery panel, ordering the parties to proceed with the chiropractic QME. The WCAB clarified that while chiropractors cannot perform surgery or prescribe medication, they are qualified to evaluate injuries within their scope of practice.

QME panel disputeremoval petitionchiropractic specialtyorthopedic surgery specialtyLabor Code 4062.2Medical Directoradministrative law judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardproper panel selectioninvalid panel request
References
Case No. ADJ3218661 (OAK 0339889)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHANCE ROLLINS vs. JOHN MARTIN STABLES, INC.; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE administered by AIG, CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ's ruling was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and denied the applicant's request for a neurology consultation under Labor Code §4601(a). The matter was returned to the trial level with instructions to issue an order for a new QME panel in neurology, as Dr. Jamasbi's request for a consultative neurological evaluation constituted good cause for a new panel under 8 Cal. Code Regs. §31.7. Attorney fees for the ex parte communication were upheld.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code 4601(a)Labor Code 4062.3QMEAgreed Medical EvaluatorNeurological ConsultMedical DirectorSpecialty Panel
References
Case No. ADJ20165742
Regular
Jul 18, 2025

DEBRA SILVEIRA vs. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED

Applicant Debra Silveira sought reconsideration of an April 29, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order, which deemed a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel valid despite being requested by defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Incorporated, with an incorrect claim number. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior decision, and substituted new findings. The Board ruled that strict compliance with Administrative Director Rule 30 regarding complete and correct claim numbers for QME panel requests is required to ensure due process and prevent conflicting or overlapping panels. Consequently, the defendant's panel (7773036) was deemed invalid, and the applicant's panel (7775940) was declared valid.

QME panel validityincorrect claim numberAD Rule 30due processadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationremoval standardDWC Medical Unitprocedural defectinadvertent error
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,045 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