What the panel ordered
The Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration, and denied defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's order denying the medical examination request.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration or removal of the Findings and Order of May 5, 2006, which denied defendant's request to compel applicant's medical examination under Labor Code section 4064(d). The WCJ recommended dismissal of the petition.
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 held that for injuries on or after January 1, 2005, when the employee is represented by counsel, medical evaluations must be obtained only through the QME/AME procedures specified in sections 4060 and 4062.2, making reports obtained under section 4064(d) inadmissible.
From the decision · page 118 and internal injury claims must be obtained through the procedures established by Labor Code
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was represented by counsel for injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2005.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This representation triggered the application of the QME/AME procedures under Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2, limiting medical evaluations to those procedures only.
From the decision · page 118 and internal injury claims must be obtained through the procedures established by Labor Code
Applicant refused to undergo medical examination by Dr. Stuart Meisner, arranged by defendant.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant's refusal was based on the statutory protections under sections 4060 and 4062.2, supporting the denial of defendant's request to compel examination.
From the decision · page 220 counsel, refused to be examined by Dr. Meisner, asserting that the examination was impermissible
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.
Defendant arranged for applicant to be examined by Dr. Meisner, but applicant refused the examination asserting it was impermissible under sections 4060 and 4062.2.
From the decision · page 219 defendant arranged for applicant to be examined by Stuart Meisner, Ph.D. Applicant, through her
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)
Medical evaluations for injuries on or after January 1, 2005, when the employee is represented, must be obtained only through the QME/AME procedures specified in Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2, making reports obtained under section 4064(d) inadmissible.
The Board applied these statutes to hold that defendant's request for a medical evaluation under section 4064(d) was properly denied.
From the decision · page 118 and internal injury claims must be obtained through the procedures established by Labor Code
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's refusal to undergo examination by Dr. Meisner based on statutory protections under sections 4060 and 4062.2.
From the decision · page 220 counsel, refused to be examined by Dr. Meisner, asserting that the examination was impermissible
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.