In Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B218847, the Second District faced a challenge to the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying claimant's petition for a new panel qualified medical evaluator under section 4062.3(f), in the claimant's petition for worker's compensation death benefits. In annulling the decision and remanding the matter, the court held that, as section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified medical evaluator, with the only exception being for communications by the employee or deceased employee's dependent in connection with an examination, and in the event of unauthorized ex parte communication permits the aggrieved party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.
People v. Ferrer, No. A124178, concerned a prosecution of defendant for cultivation of marijuana and other related charges, wherein the trial court denied prosecution's motion to continue a hearing on a defense motion to suppress evidence under section 1050. In reversing the orders granting the motion to suppress and the dismissal, the court held that the trial court erred in refusing to continue the hearing as sections 1050 and 1050.5 prohibit the dismissal of an action due to the absence of good cause for a continuance or for the prosecutor's failure to provide proper notice of a request for a continuance. Furthermore, although the trial court did not dismiss this action as an express sanction for a failure to show good cause, dismissal was the reasonably foreseeable result of denial of the motion to continue.