WCAB Protects a Separate Medical Evaluation in Police Officer ADR Claim

A July 2026 panel decision examines how California’s workers’ compensation system reviews disputes arising under a collectively bargained alternative-dispute-resolution program.

Read the official WCAB panel decision.

A Police Officer’s New Cumulative Injury Claim

Christopher Dunne, a San Francisco police officer and sergeant, alleged cumulative injury to his lower extremities and circulatory system in the form of varicose veins. His claim proceeded under a Labor Code section 3201.7 ADR program created by collective bargaining.

Dunne had used one independent medical examiner for earlier knee and lumbar injuries. For the new cumulative claim, the parties disputed whether that physician also had to serve as the evaluator.

The WCAB Could Review the Arbitrator’s Order

The City argued that the carve-out agreement and Labor Code did not authorize WCAB removal review of the arbitrator’s decision. The Board rejected that reading. The agreement allowed appeals to the WCAB in the same manner as reconsideration, and nothing in section 3201.7 categorically barred review.

The decision is a reminder that ADR programs can alter procedure, but they do not erase statutory oversight or fundamental due process.

A Separate IME Was Necessary for the New Claim

The record did not establish a stipulation that the first evaluator would handle every later injury. Dunne had removed information about the cumulative claim from a cover letter because the parties anticipated a different evaluation. Forcing the original evaluator onto the new claim would prevent Dunne from fully presenting his position and questions concerning compensability.

The Board upheld designation of a separate physician, using multiple-claim QME authorities such as Navarro as guidance where the ADR agreement lacked a specific rule.

Efficiency Cannot Override Due Process

The Board emphasized that administrative speed cannot come at the expense of a meaningful opportunity to present evidence. Each distinct claim may present different medical specialties, body systems, causation questions, and defenses.

Practical Lessons for Carve-Out Claims

• Read the ADR agreement’s appeal and medical-dispute provisions closely.
• Do not assume an evaluator selected for one claim automatically controls later claims.
• Document stipulations about evaluator scope in writing.
• Preserve the right to send accurate history and questions to the medical evaluator.
• Remember that WCAB oversight and due process remain relevant in a carve-out system.