Oakland – A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study finds that average paid losses on California workers’ compensation lost-time claims fell immediately after legislative...
By Thomas A. Robinson, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis (LexisNexis) As we move through the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States remains...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Industrially injured workers in California are entitled to receive...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 9 September 2023 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 It is well-settled law that federally recognized Indian Tribes have...
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Reminder: Panel decisions are not binding precedent.