What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed; petition for removal denied.
Petitions for reconsideration and removal filed by defendant in response to WCJ's November 21, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order regarding admissibility of applicant's medical reports.
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 WCJ correctly admitted applicant's self-procured medical reports obtained under former section 4060 as they were obtained prior to the parties' selection of QMEs under current sections 4060 and 4062.2, and not solely to rebut the panel QME's opinion. Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the reports' admissibility.
From the decision · page 11Accordingly, we concur with the WCJ's determination that the reports of Michael Einbund, M.D., Rosabel Young, M.D., Michael Wells, M.D., and Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., are admissible in proceedings before the WCAB, and may further be submitted for review by the appropriately selected panel QMEs in this matter. We express no opinion as to the evidentiary weight the reports should be accorded, either by the QMEs selected by the parties pursuant to current section 4060 and 4062.2, or by the WCJ.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's self-procured medical reports were obtained prior to the parties' selection of QMEs under current sections 4060 and 4062.2.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This timing meant the reports were not obtained solely to rebut the panel QME's opinion, making them admissible.
From the decision · page 11We observe that this "broad authorization" under sections 5703, 4064(d), and 4062.3(a) is not unlimited, and we acknowledge the Court of Appeal's cautionary admonition in Batten, supra, that a report by an expert who is retained solely for the purpose of rebutting the opinion of the panel qualified medical expert's opinion is inadmissible. However, here there is no dispute that applicant's self-procured reports were obtained prior to the parties' selection of QMEs pursuant to current sections 4060 and 4062.2. Therefore, pursuant to the reasoning in Batten, supra, applicant's self-procured reports were not obtained for the purposes of rebutting the opinion of the panel qualified medical expert's opinion, as those opinions had not yet been rendered.
Defendant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the admissibility of applicant's self-procured medical reports.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of demonstrated prejudice or harm justified denial of removal petition.
From the decision · page 11Because we discern no error in the Findings of Fact, we conclude that defendant has not met its burden of establishing substantial prejudice or that irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. We will deny removal, accordingly.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Provided medical reports obtained under former section 4060 for applicant's claimed injury period prior to 2005 reforms.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's claim was initially limited to the period December 25, 2002, to December 24, 2003, while playing for the San Francisco 49ers. (Application for Adjudication, dated April 25, 2022.) Based on the pleaded injury dates, applicant obtained medical reporting from Michael Einbund, M.D., on August 1, 2022, Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., on August 2, 2022, Michael Wells, M.D., on August 3, 2022, and Rosabel Young, M.D., on December 8, 2022. In each instance, defendant objected to the admissibility of the reports, asserting that the reports were not obtained in compliance with current sections 4060 and 4062.2. (Exhibits A-G, various dates.)
Provided medical reports obtained under former section 4060 for applicant's claimed injury period prior to 2005 reforms.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's claim was initially limited to the period December 25, 2002, to December 24, 2003, while playing for the San Francisco 49ers. (Application for Adjudication, dated April 25, 2022.) Based on the pleaded injury dates, applicant obtained medical reporting from Michael Einbund, M.D., on August 1, 2022, Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., on August 2, 2022, Michael Wells, M.D., on August 3, 2022, and Rosabel Young, M.D., on December 8, 2022. In each instance, defendant objected to the admissibility of the reports, asserting that the reports were not obtained in compliance with current sections 4060 and 4062.2. (Exhibits A-G, various dates.)
Provided medical reports obtained under former section 4060 for applicant's claimed injury period prior to 2005 reforms.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's claim was initially limited to the period December 25, 2002, to December 24, 2003, while playing for the San Francisco 49ers. (Application for Adjudication, dated April 25, 2022.) Based on the pleaded injury dates, applicant obtained medical reporting from Michael Einbund, M.D., on August 1, 2022, Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., on August 2, 2022, Michael Wells, M.D., on August 3, 2022, and Rosabel Young, M.D., on December 8, 2022. In each instance, defendant objected to the admissibility of the reports, asserting that the reports were not obtained in compliance with current sections 4060 and 4062.2. (Exhibits A-G, various dates.)
Provided medical reports obtained under former section 4060 for applicant's claimed injury period prior to 2005 reforms.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's claim was initially limited to the period December 25, 2002, to December 24, 2003, while playing for the San Francisco 49ers. (Application for Adjudication, dated April 25, 2022.) Based on the pleaded injury dates, applicant obtained medical reporting from Michael Einbund, M.D., on August 1, 2022, Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., on August 2, 2022, Michael Wells, M.D., on August 3, 2022, and Rosabel Young, M.D., on December 8, 2022. In each instance, defendant objected to the admissibility of the reports, asserting that the reports were not obtained in compliance with current sections 4060 and 4062.2. (Exhibits A-G, various dates.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 4060, 4062.2, 4064(d), 4061(i), 4605; Ward v. City of Desert Hot Springs (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1313; Valdez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1231; Batten v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1009
Medical reports obtained under former section 4060 are admissible if not obtained solely to rebut a panel QME's opinion, pursuant to Labor Code sections 4060, 4062.2, 4064(d), 4061(i), 4605, and case law including Ward, Valdez, and Batten.
The panel found that applicant's self-procured reports were obtained prior to the parties' selection of QMEs under current law and were not solely for rebuttal, thus admissible.
From the decision · page 11Accordingly, we concur with the WCJ's determination that the reports of Michael Einbund, M.D., Rosabel Young, M.D., Michael Wells, M.D., and Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., are admissible in proceedings before the WCAB, and may further be submitted for review by the appropriately selected panel QMEs in this matter. We express no opinion as to the evidentiary weight the reports should be accorded, either by the QMEs selected by the parties pursuant to current section 4060 and 4062.2, or by the WCJ.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's self-procured medical reports obtained under former section 4060 were not obtained solely to rebut the panel QME's opinion, as those opinions had not yet been rendered.
From the decision · page 11We observe that this "broad authorization" under sections 5703, 4064(d), and 4062.3(a) is not unlimited, and we acknowledge the Court of Appeal's cautionary admonition in Batten, supra, that a report by an expert who is retained solely for the purpose of rebutting the opinion of the panel qualified medical expert's opinion is inadmissible. However, here there is no dispute that applicant's self-procured reports were obtained prior to the parties' selection of QMEs pursuant to current sections 4060 and 4062.2. Therefore, pursuant to the reasoning in Batten, supra, applicant's self-procured reports were not obtained for the purposes of rebutting the opinion of the panel qualified medical expert's opinion, as those opinions had not yet been rendered.
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.