What the panel ordered
Denial of defendant's petition for reconsideration of the January 12, 2026 WCAB decision.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 12, 2026 WCAB decision granting applicant a replacement medical evaluator due to ex parte communication by defendant.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 12, 2026.
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 found no basis to overturn the prior decision granting replacement medical evaluator due to defendant's ex parte communication.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Opinion and Orders Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration" (Decision) issued on January 12, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board found, in pertinent part, that applicant was entitled to a replacement medical evaluator because defendant engaged in ex parte communication with the agreed medical evaluator (AME) by failing to serve its communication on the Official Address Record.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant engaged in ex parte communication with the agreed medical evaluator by failing to serve communication on the Official Address Record.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This was the basis for the prior decision granting replacement medical evaluator, which was upheld on reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Opinion and Orders Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration" (Decision) issued on January 12, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board found, in pertinent part, that applicant was entitled to a replacement medical evaluator because defendant engaged in ex parte communication with the agreed medical evaluator (AME) by failing to serve its communication on the Official Address Record.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 4062.2
Applied to deny defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding ex parte communication with AME.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Opinion and Orders Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration" (Decision) issued on January 12, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board found, in pertinent part, that applicant was entitled to a replacement medical evaluator because defendant engaged in ex parte communication with the agreed medical evaluator (AME) by failing to serve its communication on the Official Address Record.
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.