Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Simi: An Examination Order Did Not Justify a Mixed Suspension Warning

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 8, 2026

Decision: Simi v. Sav-Max Foods, No. SAC 323226 (WCAB Feb. 1, 2005) (en banc).

An order to attend an examination and an order cutting off benefits are different acts. In Simi, the WCAB affirmed the defense QME appointment but struck a warning that mixed up two statutory consequences of refusing an examination. The Board did not find every prospective warning unlawful; it required the judge to distinguish the statutes. Simi, page 3, footnote 4, pages 6–7.

The warning combined two different consequences

The judge’s order said the worker’s right to maintain proceedings and disability payments might be suspended if she missed the scheduled QME. That combined wording mattered. Section 4053 addressed refusal after the employer’s written request; section 4054 addressed refusal after a Board or judge’s direction. The Board explained their different effects in footnote 4. Simi, page 3.

Employer requests and judicial directions were different

As quoted and applied in the 2005 decision, section 4053 suspended the right to begin or maintain proceedings to collect compensation while the worker refused or obstructed the employer’s requested examination. Section 4054 barred disability payments accruing during refusal or obstruction of a directed examination. Neither description made all benefits permanently forfeited. Those are the decision’s historical statutory distinctions, not advice to ignore an appointment. Simi, page 3, footnote 4.

Correcting the warning did not cancel attendance

The examination itself remained authorized under the procedure for represented workers with pre-2005 injuries. Correcting the enforcement language therefore did not excuse attendance or invalidate the QME request. The companion different-specialty analysis addresses why the employer could use a physician other than its original podiatrist. Simi, pages 4–6.

The judge retained the enforcement question on remand

The Board amended the order’s title, struck the mixed warning and returned the case to the judge for appropriate proceedings, expressly including consideration of sections 4053 and 4054. It did not decide the consequences of an actual later refusal. Before responding to an examination dispute, identify the written request, any judicial direction, the stated reason for nonattendance and the exact relief sought. Simi, pages 6–7.

Key takeaways

• Keep the request and any judicial direction separately.
• Identify the precise consequence requested.
• Do not equate a corrected warning with permission to miss the examination.
• Check current law and the actual order before deciding how to respond.