If you are an injured worker or an applicant attorney handling a California workers’ compensation claim, you may have encountered an adverse medical report from a Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME).
This is a common challenge. Many PQMEs issue conservative reports that minimize impairment, deny causation, or apportion disability away from work injury. For years, insurers and defense attorneys argued that workers were “stuck” with the same PQME for all related claims.
But case law — particularly Navarro (2014, en banc) and Cowell v. County of Los Angeles — clarified that injured workers are not bound to reuse an adverse PQME for new or subsequent claims.
This article examines the implications of these cases, the legal process behind PQME disputes, and how applicants can leverage this precedent to secure more equitable evaluations.
In California, medical-legal evaluations are critical to determining entitlement to benefits.
Why this matters: If you’re assigned a biased PQME who issues an adverse report, you need to know whether you can request a new panel.
Navarro v. City of Montebello (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 418 (en banc) was a landmark case that clarified the rights of PQMEs.
The WCAB en banc held:
This protected workers from being tied indefinitely to conservative examiners.
Cowell v. County of Los Angeles (WCAB panel decision) built on Navarro.
Cowell clarified:
This distinction gave applicants more flexibility in challenging biased reports.
Adverse PQME reports can lead to:
With Navarro and Cowell, injured workers and attorneys can:
PQME disputes are governed by strict rules under Labor Code §4062.1 and §4062.2.
Missed deadlines or procedural missteps can lock workers into unfavorable examiners.
Defense attorneys often argue:
Applicant attorneys counter with the Navarro/Cowell precedent, ensuring workers’ rights to fair medical-legal evaluation.
A PQME is a Panel Qualified Medical Examiner chosen through a DWC panel to resolve disputed medical issues.
Yes — under Navarro (2014 en banc) and Cowell (2017), new claims or later filings entitle workers to new PQME panels.
Delays are common — DWC reports average 90+ days for panel assignments due to shortages.
Yes. Attorneys often depose PQMEs to challenge adverse reports, clarify apportionment, or highlight inconsistencies in their findings.
WCAB judges weigh both, but PQME/AME reports are generally considered substantial evidence unless successfully rebutted.
Yes. Cumulative trauma and subsequent injury claims filed after an adverse PQME may entitle workers to new panels.
Adverse PQME reports can feel devastating — but they do not end your claim. Thanks to Navarro and Cowell, injured workers have tools to challenge biased medical opinions.
At Michael Burgis & Associates, we:
Free consultations
No upfront fees
You only pay if we win
Contact us today to fight back against unfair PQMEs and secure the benefits you are entitled to.
"Michael told me that he was going to do the best he can for me, my family, and for my future needs. He's surrounded by a staff. A staff so excellent they're very knowledgeable, professional, and very kind, courteous ... If you're really serious in a workman's comp case what can I say Michael Burgis is the guy. His staff will treat you right, you'll go in the right direction and I guarantee you will win."
See What Our clients say