What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board affirmed its September 26, 2011 en banc decision, except it amended the decision to clarify that its principles apply prospectively from September 26, 2011.
Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its September 26, 2011 en banc decision on its own motion and issued a notice of intention to modify that decision to apply its principles prospectively from September 26, 2011.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 4, 2011, September 26, 2011.
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.
The Board clarified that its September 26, 2011 decision shall apply prospectively from that date to avoid reopening of prior orders and to prevent delay and unfairness in ongoing cases.
From the decision · page 61 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application of the principles
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Board's September 26, 2011 decision created confusion about ongoing proceedings and potential litigation over previously obtained QME panels.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact led the Board to clarify that the decision shall apply prospectively to avoid reopening prior orders and to prevent delay and unfairness.
From the decision · page 223 When it became apparent that our September 26, 2011 decision, while resolving some of the
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4062.2(b)
The Board applied this statute in clarifying the timeline for selecting an agreed medical evaluator and the prospective application of its decision.
From the decision · page 123 forth in Labor Code section 4062.2(b)3 for selecting an agreed medical evaluator (AME) and requesting a
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.