(Editor’s note: This blog is the last of a three-part series about artificial intelligence (AI) in California workers’ compensation.)
The Nightmare of Quinteros and Credibility at the WCAB (Years to Build, Seconds to Demolish)
If there is one appellate decision every California claims professional should memorize this year, it’s Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC (2026) Cal.App.5th [2026 WL 1630132. WL].
No, it’s not a workers’ compensation case. But it is a terrifying preview of what happens when lawyers treat AI like a legal magic wand.
In Quinteros, attorneys submitted court filings packed with non-existent appellate decisions and fabricated quotes. When caught, they attempted the classic modern defense: blaming their legal research software.
The 1st District Court of Appeal was profoundly unimpressed. The justices held that the lawyers had “fundamentally abdicated their responsibility to the court and to their client.” The court felt obligated to remind the attorneys of a basic concept usually covered in week one of law school: human lawyers sign briefs—not websites, algorithms, or computer applications.
The court slapped them with $6,000 in monetary sanctions ($5,000 to opposing counsel and $1,000 to the court). But honestly, the cash was the easy part.
The real nightmare was the non-monetary punishment:
The attorneys were ordered to deliver a copy of the sanctions order to the presiding judge in their related Los Angeles cases.
They were required to hand-deliver the order to every single judge in San Francisco Superior Court before whom they appeared for an entire year.
The appellate court reported them directly to the State Bar of California for violations of Duty of Honesty (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d)), Candor Toward the Tribunal (Rule 3.3), and Duty of Competence (Rule 1.1).
Imagine handing every judge you see for a year a formal court order admitting you filed fake law. That isn’t just embarrassing; it’s a career-ending parade of shame.
Does this apply to the WCAB? Absolutely. Workers’ compensation litigation relies on credibility more than almost any other venue. A Workers’ Compensation Judge’s credibility findings are virtually bulletproof on appeal.
Picture your defense attorney standing up to argue medical apportionment. Before they can speak, applicant’s counsel stands up and says: “Your Honor, before we begin, the defense brief cites three appellate decisions that do not exist in the state of California.”
Game over. Nobody is talking about apportionment anymore. Nobody cares about the QME report. The WCJ is now eyeing your attorney like a high-stakes auditor, scrutinizing every single sentence in your file, and dragging a simple hearing out for three months. Settlement value just went through the floor.
CONCLUSION
A legal reputation can take dozens of years of grueling work to build, 30 seconds of laziness to destroy, and so long to repair that you’ll start researching witness protection programs just to get a fresh start. Surviving college, grinding through law school, passing the hardest bar exam in the nation, and building a practice—only to throw it all in the trash because you couldn’t be bothered to double-check an AI output? That’s not efficiency. That’s a Greek tragedy with a billing code. The best defense attorneys won’t just use AI; they will audit it, double-check it, and refuse to let laziness replace competence.
Don R. Barthel is one of the founding partners of Bradford and Barthel, and is based in the firm’s Sacramento office. He has taken dozens of doctor depositions and analyzed thousands of medical-legal reports in order to correct innumerable errors, including misapplications of the AMA Guides, statutory misunderstandings, and other errors making the underlying medical reporting entirely speculative and unreliable. If you have any questions about workers’ compensation defense issues, please feel free to contact him at 916.569.0790 or via email at dbarthel@bradfordbarthel.com.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.