A California appellate court has annulled a workers’ compensation decision involving DPR Construction and its insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, after finding that medical evidence had been improperly admitted. The ruling, handed down on May 16, 2025, and certified for publication on June 11, offers a reminder to insurers about the importance of sticking to procedural deadlines in claim disputes.
The case centered on Alonzo McClanahan, a former DPR worker who said he injured his right shoulder while lifting lumber on the job back in July 2017. He testified that he moved about 200 long wooden planks over several hours and started feeling pain in his shoulder and neck. McClanahan claimed he reported the issue to his foreman and superintendent but didn’t make an official incident report at the time. The next day, the pain worsened and he went to see a doctor.
DPR and its carrier weren’t convinced. They denied the claim and pointed to several inconsistencies. Three of DPR’s employees testified that McClanahan never reported any injury on the day in question. He had also checked a box on his sign-out sheet indicating he wasn’t hurt. To complicate matters, McClanahan admitted at trial that he had injured his right arm in 2013 and had a history of shoulder problems, including an MRI in 2014 and treatment for shoulder pain between 2013 and 2015.
At the center of the legal challenge were two medical reports from Dr. Hanley, who had been an early qualified medical evaluator in the case. These reports were not listed in the pretrial conference statement, as required under California Labor Code section 5502. Nevertheless, the workers’ compensation judge allowed them into evidence, citing that DPR had received them before the mandatory settlement conference.
DPR challenged the ruling, arguing that this procedural rule had been broken and that the reports could have influenced the outcome. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board agreed that the reports were not properly disclosed but called the error harmless. The board reasoned that the judge did not rely on those reports to find that McClanahan had suffered a work-related injury.
The appellate court disagreed. It ruled that section 5502 sets strict boundaries on what evidence can be admitted after the mandatory settlement conference, and that exceptions must be supported by a showing of due diligence. The court cited established case law to hold that these kinds of errors are not subject to harmless error analysis. Violating the rule, it said, requires that the decision be set aside regardless of the perceived impact of the evidence.
The panel annulled the WCAB’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration without reference to the Hanley reports. DPR was awarded its costs related to the petition for review.
The court also addressed DPR’s separate claim that the judge had failed to explain why McClanahan was found credible. That argument didn’t succeed. The court noted that the judge had based the credibility finding on McClanahan’s testimony, the treatment records, and the opinion of the later-designated medical evaluator, Dr. McGahan - who concluded it was medically probable that McClanahan’s job duties on July 25, 2017, had contributed to his shoulder pain.
There was no discussion of insurance policy wording in the case. The dispute focused strictly on procedural compliance and evidentiary rules under California workers’ compensation law.
For insurers and claims professionals, the takeaway is clear: adherence to procedural timelines in workers’ compensation disputes is critical. This case illustrates how evidence - even if not outcome-determinative - can’t be allowed in unless it follows the statute. With California’s influence on workers’ compensation litigation, this ruling is likely to reinforce how carefully insurance carriers and defense counsel must manage pretrial disclosure.
