Board Panel Opinion Provides a Succinct Explanation By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The process for...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 4 April 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Several months ago, an article in LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
By William Tappin, Esq., Law Offices of Tappin & Associates, Sierra Madre, CA There has been a lot of confusion with respect to whether ERISA preempts state laws regarding numerous programs, including...
By Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated...
Here's a noteworthy panel decision (split panel) you should know about.
Medical-Legal Procedure—Stipulation to Use Agreed Medical Examiner—WCAB, denying removal in split panel opinion, affirmed WCJ’s finding that applicant was not permitted to unilaterally withdraw from his agreement to utilize orthopedic agreed medical examiner Kenneth Sabbag, M.D., to evaluate his claims for orthopedic injuries incurred on 1/13/2020 and during period 1/13/2019 through 1/13/2020, when WCAB panel majority found that pursuant to plain language in Labor Code § 4062.2(f), stipulation to utilize agreed medical examiner may only be canceled by parties’ mutual written consent, that here defendant did not consent to terminate agreement to utilize Dr. Sabbag and therefore applicant was not permitted to withdraw from agreement even though no evaluation with Dr. Sabbag had yet taken place, and that decision in Yarbrough v. Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits (2017) 83 Cal. Comp. Cases 425, 2017 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS (Appeals Board noteworthy panel decision), relied upon by dissenting Commissioner Razo, was not controlling to extent decision interpreted statutory language as permitting unilateral withdrawal from AME agreement where no evaluation had yet occurred.
Bonnevie v. Fox Studio Lot, 2021 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 247.
Reminder: Panel decisions are not binding precedent.