ADJ22209281 — California WCAB decision

ADJ22209281 · May 15, 2026

Petition for reconsideration dismissed; petition for removal granted; prior Findings and Order rescinded and substituted with a new order finding applicant entitled to designate Dr. Noriega as IME for the cumulative injury claim.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

San Francisco

What the panel ordered

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCA's January 8, 2026 Findings and Order denying entitlement to an IME evaluation with Dr. Noriega for the cumulative injury claim; the WCAB dismissed the petition for reconsideration and granted the petition for removal, rescinding the prior F&O and substituting a new one.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Medical treatment / UR / IMRApplicant prevailedbilateral lower extremities · circulatory system · varicose veins

Applicant was prejudiced by defendant's objection to Dr. Teicheira's qualifications to address varicose vein injuries, which led to withholding cumulative injury information and necessitated a separate IME with Dr. Noriega to protect applicant's due process rights.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on January 8, 2026 wherein the WCA found that applicant was not entitled to an evaluation with Robert Noriega, M.D. for the cumulative injury claim of March 26, 2007 through June 23, 2025 because applicant had already been evaluated by Independent Medical Examiner (IME), David Teicheira, M.D., who was selected by applicant to address his September 21, 2023 and January 17, 2024 injury claims.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Defendant objected to Dr. Teicheira's qualifications to address varicose vein injuries and requested removal of cumulative injury information from his evaluation.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This objection led to withholding cumulative injury information from Dr. Teicheira's evaluation, prejudicing applicant's ability to present his case fully.

From the decision · page 2On June 30, 2025, applicant's attorney's office provided defendant with a proposed cover letter to Dr. Teicheira (Exhibit I) and on July 1, 2025 defendant responded via email (Exhibits J and K) objecting to portions of the cover letter referencing the cumulative injury and use of Dr. Teicheira as the IME for the new claim. Defendant alleged that Dr. Teicheira was "not [a] qualified internist in the field of varicose vein[s]." (Exhibit J.) Applicant's attorney's office responded via email on the same date with a revised cover letter removing the requested portions and noting that Dr. Teicheira was in fact a "certified QME internist" but if defendant wished to proceed with another exam at a later date, applicant would be willing to acquiesce. (Exhibit L.)

Applicant agreed to withhold cumulative injury information from Dr. Teicheira's evaluation and anticipated another evaluation with a different IME.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This agreement was prejudicial to applicant and necessitated a separate IME with Dr. Noriega to protect due process rights.

From the decision · page 7Here, there was no stipulation to allow Dr. Teicheira to act as IME on all of applicant's claimed injuries. Further, applicant agreed to withhold information pertaining to the cumulative injury in anticipation of another evaluation with a different IME. This was prejudicial to applicant in that he was unable to provide his position on the cumulative injury or pose any specific questions to Dr. Teicheira on compensability and other relevant issues with respect to the cumulative injury. Given that applicant was unable to provide information or raise inquiries to which he is otherwise entitled under Administrative Director (A.D.) Rules 35(a)(3) and 35.5(c)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 35(a)(3), 35.5(c)(1)), denying a separate IME with Dr. Noriega would violate the applicant's due process rights.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

Petition for removal granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate remedy (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)).

Applied to grant petition for removal due to prejudice and due process concerns.

From the decision · page 5Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner can show that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a). The petitioner must also demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Ibid.)

Navarro v. City of Montebello (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 418 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

Applicant need not return to same IME for subsequent claims; evaluator must consider all claims reported before evaluation (Navarro v. City of Montebello (2014)).

Applied to clarify IME selection for multiple claims and cumulative injury evaluation.

From the decision · page 6We note that although there are no specific rules addressing the selection of IMEs in a multiple claim situation, we find guidance from cases addressing the use of panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (PQMEs) in cases involving two or more claims. In Navarro v. City of Montebello (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 418, 420 (Appeals Bd. en banc), we held that the "Labor Code does not require an employee to return to the same PQME for an evaluation of a subsequent claim of injury." Accordingly, an applicant need not return to the same IME for evaluation of a subsequent claim of injury. However, sections 4062.3(j) and 4064(a) taken together state that a medical evaluation shall address "all medical issues arising from all injuries reported on one or more claim forms." In keeping with requirements set forth under sections 4062.3(j) and 4064(a), Navarro clarified that at the time of evaluation, the evaluator shall consider all issues arising out of any claims reported before the evaluation, and if several subsequent claims of injury are filed before the evaluation takes place, the evaluator shall also consider those claims. (Id. at p. 425.)

ADJ22209281 · May 15, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page