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. ADJ2154380
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

SPENCER DAVIS vs. CLARK & SULLIVAN, INC., LWP CLAIMS SACRAMENTO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN FRANCISCO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

In this case, the defendant sought to disqualify a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their alleged unavailability for deposition within 120 days as required by Administrative Director Rule 35.5(f). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal. The WCAB found that Rule 31.5, which allows for replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board determined the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, especially after rescheduling the deposition themselves.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorDeposition UnavailabilityAdministrative Director RuleMandatory RegulationPrejudice and HarmReplacement PanelWCJ OrderUpper Extremities InjuryPsyche Injury
References
Case No. ADJ2154380 (SAC 0363541)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

Spencer Davis vs. Clark & Sullivan, Inc., LWP Claims Sacramento, Berkshire Hathaway San Francisco, Berkshire Hathaway Pasadena

The defendant sought to disqualify the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their unavailability for deposition within the regulatory 120-day timeframe. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition for removal, affirming the lower order. The WCAB found that Administrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5, concerning replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board found no demonstrable prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the defendant's own rescheduling of the deposition.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME UnavailabilityDeposition SchedulingAdministrative Director RulesAD Rule 35.5(f)AD Rule 31.5(a)(5)AD Rule 33PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ10691348
Regular
Sep 01, 2017

NICHOLAS THOMPSON vs. SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

This case involved a petition for removal granted to the applicant, Nicholas Thompson, concerning an order for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The applicant argued he would suffer irreparable harm as his evaluation was complete and a new QME would necessitate restarting the process. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found no evidence in the record regarding the current QME's unavailability or the defendant's due diligence in discovery efforts. Therefore, the Board rescinded the order for a replacement QME and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalReplacement QMEQualified Medical EvaluatorUnavailabilityIrreparable HarmPrejudiceDue DiligenceDiscoveryAdmitted EvidenceWCAB Rule 33
References
Case No. ADJ8647584
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

Antonio Vargas vs. Darrell Becker, Becker Construction, Ace Private Risk Services, ESIS, Miguel Quintero

The Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's finding that Antonio Vargas sustained industrial injury to his bilateral wrists while employed as a painter/helper. The Board found no error in admitting Vargas's remote testimony via FaceTime from Mexico, considering his deportation established his unavailability. Testimony from Aida Higuera, mother of Vargas's children, was also deemed admissible to confirm his identity, as the need arose after the pre-trial conference. However, the issue of injury to other body parts was deferred for further proceedings due to insufficient evidence.

Remote TestimonyFaceTimeDue ProcessEvidence Code 240Labor Code 5502(d)(3)Pretrial Conference StatementUnavailabilityPerjuryFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureLabor Code 5710
References
Case No. ADJ7231490, ADJ7231492
Regular
Jan 04, 2011

JUAN PEREZ vs. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; ZURICH LOS ANGELES

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Juan Perez's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. Perez failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration was unavailable. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyReconsideration UnavailableDeniedADJ7231490ADJ7231492
References
Case No. ADJ11802539
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

LA TONYA RIDER vs. PRIDE INDUSTRIES, NORTH RIVER INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order denying a replacement QME panel. Defendant sought a replacement due to the current QME's unavailability for deposition. The Board found the original order lacked an evidentiary basis, necessitating a return to the trial level. Further proceedings will establish an evidentiary record to adjudicate the QME replacement issue, considering relevant Administrative Director Rules.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator paneldeposition unavailabilityevidentiary recordsubstantial evidenceAdministrative Director Rule 31.5(a)Administrative Director Rule 35.5(f)trial levelrescinded orderReturn to trial
References
Case No. ADJ8621523
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

MEI YING CHEN vs. JOHNSON LEATHER CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Johnson Leather Corporation's petition for reconsideration of a findings and award. The original award found the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating an employee for intending to file a workers' compensation claim. The defendant sought reconsideration based on newly available witnesses, but the Board found the petition lacked specific legal arguments and evidentiary support from the record. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate why these witnesses were unavailable at the original trial or request a continuance.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminatory dischargePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardworkers' compensation injuryunavailable witnessesReport and Recommendationcredibility determinationWCJ credibilitymanagerial testimony
References
Case No. ADJ14778693
Regular
Oct 29, 2025

DARRELL DICKERSON vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study legal and factual issues. Defendant sought reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the WCJ, which denied a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel and affirmed Dr. Lucas Campos as the valid QME. The Board applied a removal standard to the interlocutory finding challenged by the petitioner and found that significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was denied. Consequently, the Board rescinded the F&O and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically to reconsider whether good cause exists to order a replacement QME panel, in light of the Vazquez case factors.

PQMEAD Rule 31.3(e)AD Rule 31.5(a)(2)replacement panelreevaluationunavailabilityAppeals Boardremoval standardthreshold issueinterlocutory issue
References
Case No. ADJ10393776
Regular
Dec 28, 2020

VILMA PANAMENO vs. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKET, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel after the original QME's appointment expired and they were allegedly unavailable for cross-examination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found insufficient evidence that the QME was not certified at the time of his reports or that he was truly unavailable. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and the WCAB declined to consider evidence not presented to the trial judge.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel ReplacementCross-ExaminationMedical UnitThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionAdministrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5Judicial Notice
References
Case No. ADJ162353
Regular
Nov 02, 2012

GARY NORTH vs. AERO ELECTRIC CONNECTOR, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an interim order finding an applicant sustained industrial cumulative trauma injury to his neck and internal systems. The defendant argued the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion was not substantial evidence due to an inaccurate history and failure to review all records. The Board found the AME's opinion was based on a thorough evaluation and job duties, affirming the finding of neck injury. The defendant also challenged the reliance on Dr. David's report for internal injuries, citing issues with his appointment and unavailability for deposition; however, the Board found Dr. David's report constituted substantial evidence and that defendant waived objections to his appointment and deposition unavailability by failing to raise them timely.

Cumulative traumaAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code section 5701Regular physicianPetition for reconsiderationIndustrial injuryWCJDRE Cervical Category IIWhole Person Impairment
References
Showing 1-10 of 48 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