Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Batten: A Privately Retained Medical-Legal Rebuttal Report Was Inadmissible

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 18, 2026

Batten distinguishes treatment consultation from a privately procured medical-legal evaluation offered to rebut the statutory evaluator.

Conflicting psychiatric opinions

Margaret Batten claimed a psychiatric injury arising from accepted physical injuries suffered as a registered nurse. The agreed psychiatric QME attributed 47 percent of her condition to industrial factors. A privately retained expert put industrial causation above 51 percent, and the judge relied on that report to find a compensable psychiatric injury.

The statutory QME route controlled

Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2 require represented employees to obtain compensability evaluations through the prescribed agreed- or panel-QME process. Section 4061(i) expressly makes permanent-impairment evaluations obtained outside that route inadmissible, except for qualifying treating-physician evaluations.

Section 4605 did not convert the report

The right to consult a physician at the worker's expense did not make a litigation expert's rebuttal report admissible. Section 4605 concerns consulting or attending physicians in the treatment context; it does not authorize a second medical-legal evaluator retained solely to counter the agreed QME.

Disposition

The Court of Appeal affirmed the WCAB's exclusion of the private report. The report could be reviewed and addressed by the statutory evaluator, but it could not itself become admissible medical-legal evidence supporting the award.

Key takeaways

• Use the statutory evaluator process for compensability and impairment disputes.
• A privately paid report is not automatically admissible.
• Treatment consultation and medical-legal rebuttal serve different statutory roles.
• Plan evidentiary strategy before obtaining an outside evaluation.