What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant challenging denial of Petition for Costs and Fees
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 Petition for Reconsideration was timely and properly filed, but the Board denied it based on the WCJ's findings that both parties violated Labor Code section 4062.3(f) and neither acted with clean hands.
From the decision · page 32. Identity of Petitioner: Defendant has filed the Petition. Timeliness: The petition is timely. Verification: A verification is attached to the petition.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to serve opposing counsel with the May 6, 2016 fee agreement communication to Dr. Fenton
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure constituted an ex parte communication violating Labor Code section 4062.3(f), leading to denial of Petition for Costs and Fees and denial of Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6These various protections that are designed to prevent a provider from receiving excessive fees support the conclusion that communications with an agreed medical evaluator regarding the payment of or an agreement to pay fees/deposit for a cross-examination cannot be deemed a nonsubstantial matter, particularly in light of the parties' statutory right to challenge such fees. The opposing party is at a disadvantage if he is not timely apprised of the amount of fees the other party has paid or agreed to pay.
Applicant counsel's objections to Dr. Fenton's cross-examination fees violated Labor Code section 4062.3
Favours Applicant prevailed
Both parties violated the statute and neither acted with clean hands, resulting in denial of their respective Petitions for Costs and Fees.
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.
Dr. Fenton was stricken as the agreed medical evaluator due to issues with his cross-examination fees and deposit policy.
The WCJ found that Dr. Fenton's non-refundable deposit policy conflicted with applicable fee schedules and procedural rules, leading to his removal as AME.
From the decision · page 4In response, Defendant filed its own Petition for Costs and Sanctions on October 31, 2016 and its own Petition to Strike Dr. Fenton on November 2, 2016. WCALJ Judge Banks ultimately ordered that Dr. Fenton be stricken as the agreed medical evaluator, but deferred action on the competing Petitions for Fees and Costs. The parties obtained a QME Panel upon which Dr. Soheil Aval was selected to serve as the Orthopedic PQME. The parties would eventually settle the case via Stipulations with Request for Award based on Dr. Aval's reporting.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4062.3(f)
Labor Code section 4062.3(f) prohibits ex parte communications with agreed medical evaluators unless related to nonsubstantial matters and requires serving opposing party
From the decision · page 5Communications with an agreed medical evaluator shall be in writing, and shall be served on the opposing party when sent to the agreed medical evaluation. (Lab. Code, § 4062.3(f).) Oral or written communications with physician staff or, as applicable, with the agree medical evaluator, relative to nonsubstantial matters such as the scheduling of appointments, missed appointments, the furnishing of records and reports, and the availability of the report, do not constitute ex parte communications. (Ibid.) (Emphasis added.)
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5903
Labor Code section 5900(a) and 5903 govern the grounds and timeliness for petitions for reconsideration
The Board applied these statutes to determine the petition was timely but denied on merits.
From the decision · page 4Under Labor Code section 5900(a), a Petition for Reconsideration may only be taken from a "final" order, decision, or award. A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180) or determines a threshold issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1070.) Pursuant to Labor Code section 5903, any person aggrieved by any final order, decision, or award may petition for reconsideration upon one or more of the following grounds:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant counsel's challenge to AME Dr. Fenton's cross-examination fees was not bad faith but violated Labor Code section 4062.3
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.