MICHAEL SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES BLOG

Labor Code § 4062.2 establishes the rules for requesting a panel of qualified medical evaluators (QMEs) when an employee is represented by an attorney. After a panel is obtained, LC 4062.2(c) states, "Within 10 days of assignment of the panel by the administrative director, each party may strike one name from the panel." The statute does not describe the appropriate method for exercising a strike, but it adds, "The administrative director may prescribe the form, the manner, or both, by which the parties shall conduct the selection process." Although the administrative director has adopted regulations related to the QME selection process in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 29 et seq, none of the regulations discusses the striking process.

January was a busy and energizing start to the year for Team Rhino. Throughout the month, our attorneys connected with HR professionals at PIHRA’s CELU Conferences in San Diego and Riverside, led client training events, and came together for an all-attorneys lunch at our Orange County office. These moments reflect our continued commitment to education, collaboration, and strong client relationships.

We’re looking forward to carrying this momentum into the months ahead!

If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!

Labor Code § 4062.2 establishes the rules for requesting a panel of qualified medical evaluators (QMEs) when an employee is represented by an attorney. After a panel is obtained, LC 4062.2(c) states, "Within 10 days of assignment of the panel by the administrative director, each party may strike one name from the panel." The statute does not describe the appropriate method for exercising a strike, but it adds, "The administrative director may prescribe the form, the manner, or both, by which the parties shall conduct the selection process." Although the administrative director has adopted regulations related to the QME selection process in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 29 et seq, none of the regulations discusses the striking process.

As we closed out the year, December was filled with connection, celebration, and teamwork at Michael Sullivan & Associates. From our annual firm holiday party to festive gatherings with organizations we’re proud to be involved with—and team-building events across several offices—it was a month that truly reflected the spirit of #TeamRhino.

Thank you to everyone who helped make December such a memorable way to wrap up the year. We’re excited to carry this momentum into the year ahead!

If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!

The physician-patient privilege is not absolute in workers' compensation, but neither is a defendant's right to discovery. Although filing a claim waives the privilege for conditions placed at issue, foundational cases, such as Allison v. WCAB, 72 Cal. App. 4th 654, established that this waiver does not grant defendants unfettered access to an applicant's entire medical history. That creates a constant tension between an applicant's constitutional right to privacy and a defendant's right to relevant information.

Two recent panel decisions from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 339 and Tran v. UL, LLC, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 340, provide a practical roadmap for navigating this complex terrain. Read together, they act as a clear warning against overbroad discovery tactics while simultaneously affirming a defendant's right to relevant discovery through the power of a well-crafted protective order to obtain necessary, sensitive information.

November kept Team Rhino on the move! From conferences and industry panels to holiday mixers, charity events, and client celebrations, we had a fantastic month connecting with colleagues and strengthening relationships across the workers’ compensation community. We’re grateful for every invitation, every handshake, and every opportunity to show up and support the organizations that keep our industry thriving.

Scroll through to catch some of our favorite moments — and here’s to finishing the year strong!

If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!

The scope of California's jurisdiction over cumulative trauma claims filed by professional athletes has long been a contentious issue. California workers' compensation laws are generally more liberal than laws in other states. So professional athletes commonly file workers' compensation claims in California, even when they have a limited connection to the state and have long histories of playing for out-of-state teams.

In 2013, the Legislature passed AB 1309, which amended Labor Code § 3600.5 to limit workers' compensation claims in California by out-of-state professional athletes. The bill was intended to address a loophole in the California workers' compensation system that was deemed to be detrimental to state interests and to its sports teams. Specifically, as a result of the "last employer over which California has jurisdiction" rule, California teams were facing cumulative injury claims from players with extremely minimal California contacts, but substantial playing histories for teams in other states. In addition, out-of-state sports teams were having claims filed against them in California, resulting in several consequences including: (1) clogging the WCAB with cases that should be filed in another state, thereby delaying cases of California employees; (2) forcing insured California employers to absorb rapidly escalating costs being incurred by CIGA; and (3) increasing pressure on insurers to raise workers' compensation rates in California to cover the rising and unanticipated costs.

In an important development, the well-known Patterson case has been reversed by a Court of Appeal. Patterson is the significant panel decision that held that certain types of continuing care were not subject to utilization review (UR) and independent medical review (IMR). This decision, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency LLC v. WCAB (Rodriguez) has held that the Patterson reasoning was inapposite of the statutory language, and has subjected continuing care to UR/IMR.

BACKGROUND

With the enactment of Senate Bill 863 in 2012, the California Legislature established the independent medical review (IMR) process. It became effective for all treatment requests Jan. 1, 2013. The IMR process replaced judicial review as the method to appeal UR decisions regarding all proposed medical care. Under the statutory scheme, all proposed medical care is to be requested by a physician submitting a request for authorization (RFA). That request is reviewed by UR, and may be appealed only to IMR. Judicial review of such care for reasonableness was no longer allowed (later case law established the sole exception — being for late UR).