Stephanie Tovar v. United Pacific; Everest Premier Insurance Co.
California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · California (WCAB) · California bar guidance
Verified April 28, 2026
- Citation
- Tovar v. United Pacific, ADJ17817958 / ADJ17817957 (Cal. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. Oct. 13, 2025) (panel decision)
- Decided
- October 13, 2025
Summary
In a Petition for Removal from a workers' compensation order on the bifurcation of a Labor Code § 3208.3(d) defense, defendant's counsel Brittany Luedecke (Cal. Bar #289896) of the Law Offices of Schlossberg & Umholtz cited two WCAB panel decisions, Muldrow v. AMS Outsourcing / Staffchex (2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 452) and Mangan v. Oakdale Inn (2022 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 219), with quoted language purporting to support defendant's position. The WCAB panel reviewed both decisions and found that the Muldrow panel did not support defendant's argument and that defendant's quotations from Mangan "do not appear to exist." The Mangan panel actually stood for the opposite proposition. The WCAB observed that "it is unclear how an attorney licensed by the California State Bar, who signed the Petition for Removal under penalty of perjury, could have read the panel decisions above and cited them in the manner they were presented" and noted "it appears that the Petition was not reviewed before filing."
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI (suspected; not confirmed in the order)
- Sanction amount:
- Up to $2,500 (Notice of Intention; final sanctions pending response)
What sanction did the court impose?
WCAB granted the Petition for Removal solely to address sanctions and issued a Notice of Intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500.00 jointly and severally against defendant United Pacific, insurer Everest Premier Insurance Co., administrator Broadspire, and defendant's attorneys the Law Offices of Schlossberg & Umholtz and Brittany Luedecke. Authority: Cal. Labor Code § 5813 and 8 CCR § 10421. Defendant was invited to explain in its response "in detail, how these citations were generated." Final sanctions are payable to the California General Fund absent timely objection demonstrating good cause within 25 days of service.
Why does Stephanie Tovar v. United Pacific; Everest Premier Insurance Co. matter for law firms using AI?
Tovar is the first WCAB case publicly addressing fabricated citations bearing the hallmarks of AI-generated content. It is a panel decision (not en banc, not designated “significant”), so it is persuasive but does not create binding precedent on other WCAB panels. The decision matters for two reasons.
First, it confirms that the existing California workers’ compensation sanctions framework, Lab. Code § 5813 and 8 CCR § 10421, is sufficient to reach AI-induced fabricated citations in a verified petition signed under penalty of perjury. The WCAB cited Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 and California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 alongside the WCAB-specific authority, framing the violation as both a frivolous-filing problem and a candor-to-the-tribunal problem.
Second, by joining the defendant employer, insurer, administrator, and outside counsel in the Notice of Intention, the order signals that sanctions exposure for AI-induced citation errors will run beyond the individual attorney to the carrier and adjuster. Workers’ compensation defense practice involves layered representation, and Tovar is the first WCAB decision to extend AI sanctions exposure across that layer in a single Notice of Intention.
The case is ongoing as of the dated decision; final sanctions depend on defendant’s response. Practitioners with WCAB matters should treat Tovar as the operative warning that the WCAB will sanction AI-induced fabricated citations under existing rules, even though no AI-specific WCAB rule exists.
Sources
Primary sources
- The order does not confirm AI generation. The WCAB observed that the citations "appear to be fabricated" and asked defendant to explain how they were generated; AI involvement is the most likely explanation but has not been independently confirmed in this docket.