A recent decision by a California appellate court has overturned a workers’ compensation ruling involving DPR Construction and its insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company. This ruling, made public on June 11, 2025, serves as a crucial reminder for insurers about the importance of following procedural rules in claim disputes.
The case revolves around Alonzo McClanahan, a former worker at DPR, who reported injuring his right shoulder while lifting lumber back in July 2017. He claimed he moved around 200 long wooden planks over several hours, which led to pain in his shoulder and neck. Although McClanahan said he informed his foreman about the injury, he did not file an official report at the time. The following day, his pain intensified, prompting him to seek medical attention.
DPR and its insurance provider were skeptical of McClanahan’s claim. They pointed out inconsistencies, including testimony from three DPR employees who stated that McClanahan did not report an injury that day. Furthermore, McClanahan had indicated on his sign-out sheet that he was not hurt. Adding to the complexity, he admitted during the trial that he had previously injured his right arm in 2013 and had a history of shoulder issues.
The heart of the legal dispute involved two medical reports from Dr. Hanley, an early medical evaluator in the case. These reports were not included in the pretrial conference statement, violating California Labor Code section 5502. Despite this, the workers’ compensation judge allowed the reports as evidence, arguing that DPR had received them before the mandatory settlement conference.
DPR contested this ruling, insisting that the procedural error was significant and could have swayed the outcome. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board acknowledged that the reports were improperly disclosed but deemed the error harmless, asserting that the judge did not rely on those reports to conclude that McClanahan had suffered a work-related injury.
However, the appellate court disagreed. It emphasized that section 5502 imposes strict guidelines on evidence admission after the settlement conference, and any exceptions must be justified. The court noted that such errors are not subject to harmless error analysis, meaning the violation of the rule warranted setting aside the decision, regardless of the evidence’s perceived influence.
Consequently, the appellate court annulled the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s decision and sent the case back for reconsideration, excluding the Hanley reports. DPR was also awarded costs related to its petition for review.
The court further addressed DPR’s claim that the judge had not sufficiently explained why McClanahan was deemed credible. This argument did not hold up, as the court found the judge’s credibility assessment was based on McClanahan’s testimony, medical records, and the opinion of another medical evaluator, Dr. McGahan, who suggested that McClanahan’s job duties likely contributed to his shoulder pain.
This case highlights the critical nature of adhering to procedural timelines in workers’ compensation disputes. It underscores the necessity for insurance carriers and defense attorneys to manage pretrial disclosures meticulously, especially given California’s significant role in shaping workers’ compensation law.