Nyman Turkish Landmark Decisions: Silveira and Sidahmed Rulings Secure Procedural Process for Workers’ Compensation 

Nyman Turkish Senior Associate Workers’ Compensation Attorneys Alexandra Kabbaz-Szabo and Christina Carrasco were recently a part of two cases that will help drive meaningful systemic progress within California’s Workers’ Compensation system. 

Background 

Per California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 30, when an employee is represented by an attorney, a party requesting a panel of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) from the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) Medical Unit must provide specific information, including the claim number.

Historically, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has been inconsistent in deciding whether a party’s failure to provide the correct claim number results in an invalid panel request.

About the Cases

In Sidahmed v. Alameda County Counsel, 2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 103, Azza Sidahmed, represented by Nyman Turkish Senior Associate Attorney Christina Carrasco, was injured on the job working as an administrative assistant in March 2019. Initially, a QME panel was requested by the defendant (Alameda County Counsel) using the wrong claim number. The applicant (Sidahmed) requested a different QME panel using the correct claim number. 

The WJC ruled in November 2023 that the QME panel requested by the defendant was valid and the other QME requested by the applicant was invalid, the applicant petitioned for reconsideration arguing that because the incorrect claim number was used when requesting the initial QME panel, the panel was void and wasn’t properly served. After reviewing the case, in March 2024, the WCAB held that a QME panel request submitted with an incorrect claim number is void ab initio.

However, later, in Salamat v. SBM Site Services, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 28, the WCAB held that a party’s request for panel was not invalid, even when the party mistakenly provided a specific injury claim number on the request instead of the correct cumulative injury claim number, stating “To find otherwise would place form over substance.”  

Now, a recent panel decision for, Silveira v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 243, establishes a clear rule that even a minor error when providing a claim number when requesting a QME panel will result in the request being invalid.   

This decision establishes that the WCAB will focus on strict procedural compliance and accuracy, rather than evaluating each case based on the party’s intent. 

In Silveira, the defendant, Debra Silveira, a FedEx package handler, alleged that she sustained multiple injuries while working in October 2023. Nyman Turkish Senior Associate Attorney Alexandra Kabbaz-Szabo served as counsel. FedEx was the permissibly self-insured defendant.  In January 2025, the employer (FedEx) requested a QME panel for the case but when filing the request, provided an incorrect claim number, missing a digit at the end. Later that month, Silveria requested a new QME panel with the correct claim number, further claiming that the initial QME panel was invalid because of the incorrect claim number.  

In April 2025, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) ruled that the first panel was valid, despite the incorrect claim number. 

Petition for Reconsideration 

After the ruling, Silveria petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that using the wrong claim number does not comply with the intent of the law for requesting QME panels — because the claim number serves as the unique identifier for the case. 

In July 2025, a WCAB Board granted Silveria’s petition and rescinded the original decision by the first WJC judge.   

The Board held that because the request for QME panel had the incorrect claim number, the panel was invalid, and the QME panel later obtained with the correct claim number was valid. 

“Silveira builds thoughtfully on Sidahmed by confirming that accuracy in claim numbers is a due-process safeguard, not a technical preference.Enforcing this requirement promotes consistent QME panel practice and reduces delays that directly affect injured workers.”

– Christina Carrasco, Senior Associate Workers’ Compensation Attorney

This decision emphasizes strict compliance with the rules for QME panel requests to avoid confusion and errors and to ensure due process. The ruling represents a landmark decision for Workers’ Compensation cases in California and underscores a key takeaway: precision and attention to detail matter, even in the smallest instances. Without this precedent, errors could persist and, in some cases, lead to delays or the use of invalid experts in cases. 

“Cases are won or lost very early on from panel selection alone. We are thrilled that the W.C.A.B. recognizes the importance of precision in panel selection as it is often the foundation of discovery.”

– Alexandra Kabbaz-Szabo, Senior Associate Workers’ Compensation Attorney

Fierce Advocacy 

At Nyman Turkish, our strength goes beyond top attorneys and higher approval rates. We help drive meaningful change by shaping rulings that impact our clients and people seeking benefits across the nation. 

We are incredibly proud of our attorneys, Kabbaz-Szabo and Carrasco, for their role in advancing this systemic progress, and we remain committed to continuing the fight for our clients and justice on a broader scale.