LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
California Workers’ Compensation Reform SB 863 Analysis: Medical Treatment Provisions

***NEW! TO READ AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF THE 8/30/2012 VERSION OF SB 863, CLICK HERE . On 8/31/2012, the Legislature passed SB 863.*** ***WARNING: The analysis below was based on the 8/24/2012 version of SB 863. Several amendments were made to the bill since that time. *** The proposed “new...

California Workers’ Compensation Reform SB 863 Analysis: Medical Treatment Provisions

***NEW! TO READ AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF THE 8/30/2012 VERSION OF SB 863, CLICK HERE . On 8/31/2012, the Legislature passed SB 863.*** ***WARNING: The analysis below was based on the 8/24/2012 version of SB 863. Several amendments were made to the bill since that time. *** The proposed “new...

California Workers’ Compensation Reform SB 863 Analysis: Medical Treatment Provisions (9/7/2012)

The following analysis is based on the 8/30/2012 amended version of SB 863: SB863, widely lauded as the “new and improved” workers’ compensation reform package passed both the houses of the legislature on Friday, August 31 and is now on the Governor’s desk waiting to be signed...

California Workers’ Compensation Reform SB 863 Analysis: Medical Treatment Provisions (9/7/2012)

The following analysis is based on the 8/30/2012 amended version of SB 863: SB863, widely lauded as the “new and improved” workers’ compensation reform package passed both the houses of the legislature on Friday, August 31 and is now on the Governor’s desk waiting to be signed...

California: Appellate Court Broadly Interprets Labor Code Section 5803

In a brief and to the point decision, the 2nd Appellate District has reversed a W.C.A.B. decision that had rescinded an award of increased benefits based upon a Petition to Reopen. The case, Benavides v W.C.A.B ., is one of the briefest opinions on a workers’ compensation issue that this commentator...

California: WCAB Imposes Difficult Standards for Overturning a UR Decision

The WCAB, in two recent noteworthy panel decisions, has imposed a difficult standard for applicants seeking to overturn a utilization review (UR) decision. Do these decisions signal a policy decision on the part of the Board to limit reversals of UR decisions? In the first panel decision, the WCAB, in...

California: 2004 Stipulation Regarding Future Medical Treatment Disputes Being Referred to AME Could Not Circumvent UR Procedures

But parties not required to follow new IMR process created by SB 863 as change in law does not supersede parties’ prior stipulation In Bertrand v. County of Orange , 2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS --, a WCAB panel, granting removal and amending the WCJ’s order, determined that the...

California: Can a Utilization Review Determination Exceed Its Appropriate Scope?

With respect to the increasing litigation over the UR process, is Dubon really the issue in many of these UR disputes? Utilization Review (UR) has been around for more than ten years now. UR first came into play in 2003 when Governor Gray Davis passed Senate Bill 228 . The following year, on April...

California: Tips for Stips & More

What if Defendant “#1” and applicant agree to use an AME in a case, but Defendant “#2” does not. Will Defendant “#2” be bound by the findings of the AME it never agreed to use? These questions and more were answered in the recent Noteworthy Panel Decision (NPD) of...

California: Quirky Regs and Rules Related to the Medical Legal Evaluation Process

Trial calendars have been inundated lately with expedited hearings dealing with Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) and Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) issues. As a result of the Post-SB 863 onslaught of new regs, rules and procedures, the legal community is having a difficult time keeping up with many...

Sole Reliance on Applicant’s Lay Testimony on Medical Issue Was Erroneous: Cal. Comp. Cases April Advanced Postings (4/2/2015)

Here are the first and second batches of advanced postings for the April 2015 issue of Cal. Comp. Cases. Lexis.com and Lexis Advance subscribers can link to the case to read the complete headnotes and summaries. © Copyright 2015 LexisNexis. All rights reserved. Lynda Myers , Petitioner...

California: Self-Procured Medical Marijuana

Are applicants entitled to reimbursement for self-procured medical marijuana both pre- and post-SB 863? In Cockrell v. Farmers Insurance , 2015 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS --, a WCAB panel has once again rescinded the WCJ’s finding that the applicant was entitled to reimbursement (as opposed...