MICHAEL SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES BLOG

Labor Code § 4610(l) allows an employer to defer conducting utilization review (UR) of a request for medical treatment "while the employer is disputing liability for injury or treatment of the condition for which treatment is recommended pursuant to Section 4062." Former California Code of Regulation (CCR) 9792.9.1(b) and new CCR 9792.9.2(a), effective April 1, 2026, state that a request for authorization "may be deferred if the claims administrator disputes liability for either the occupational injury for which the treatment is recommended or the recommended treatment itself on grounds other than medical necessity." That procedure protects defendants from having to immediately determine the medical necessity of treatment for a potentially nonindustrial condition.

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.

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.

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.

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).

California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 30 establishes the process by which a party may request a panel of qualified medical evaluators (QMEs) from the DWC Medical Unit. CCR 30(b) applies when an employee is represented by an attorney. It requires a party requesting a panel to provide specified information, including the claim number.

Previously, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has been inconsistent as to whether a party's failure to provide the correct claim number renders a panel request invalid. In Sidahmed v. Alameda County Counsel, 2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 103, the WCAB held that a defendant's failure to provide the correct claim number rendered its request for the issuance of a panel of QMEs void ab initio. But later, it held in Salamat v. SBM Site Services, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 28, that an applicant's request for a panel was not invalid, even though she mistakenly listed a specific injury claim number on the panel request rather than the intended cumulative injury claim number, stating, "To find otherwise would place form over substance."

For more than two decades, the law governing the identification of liable parties has been shaped by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board’s en banc decisions in Coldiron v. Compuware Corp. In Coldiron I,^[1] the WCAB held that a third-party administrator (TPA) has a duty to disclose the identity of its client — whether a self-insured employer or an insurance carrier. Crucially, if the client is an insurance carrier, the TPA also must disclose whether the policy includes a "high self-insured retention," a large deductible or any other provision that affects the identity of the entity ultimately liable for payment. The WCAB warned that failure to do so could result in sanctions.

In Coldiron II,^[2] the WCAB declined to impose sanctions, as it was a case of first impression, but reiterated that the disclosure holdings remained in full force and effect.

The use of sub rosa surveillance video is a powerful tool in workers' compensation, often used to challenge an applicant’s credibility regarding the claimed level of disability. The timing and procedure for providing such evidence can be a point of significant dispute.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has long recognized that a defendant may withhold surveillance video until after an applicant's deposition. In Downing v. City of Hayward (1988) 16 CWCR 76 (panel decision), the WCAB explained: