California WCAB Holds Rule 30 Limitation on Defendant’s Obtaining QME Report Invalid

The W.C.A.B. in surprising and welcome en banc decision has held the recently adopted administrative director regulation commonly known as Rule 30 [ADR § 30(d)(3) ] is invalid in that it conflicts the provisions of Labor Code § 4060(c) and § 4062.2 . The W.C.A.B. found numerous reasons...

California: Mendoza En Banc Decision Makes Fundamental Change to Initial QME Procedures in Denied Claims

Sophisticated Applicants have been using Administrative Director Rule 30(d)(3) to preclude defendants from either obtaining or introducing rebuttal or subsequent medical reports to establish compensability in denied claims. Rule 30(d)(3) provides that whenever a claim had been entirely denied, only the...

California: Alvarez Decision Emphasizes Importance of NEVER Communicating Ex Parte with QME

The Second Appellate District has issued a published decision in the matter of Alvarez v. WCAB which takes a literal approach to labor code 4062.3(e) which prohibits ex parte communication with the panel QME. The facts of the case best illustrate the point. In a denied death case, the panel QME...

California: Rule 30(d)(3) OUT!

In a significant en banc decision ( Mendoza v. Huntington Hospital , ADJ6820138; ADJ6820197, attached), the WCAB found Rule 30(d)(3) invalid. Additionally, the WCAB said there were no time limits on requesting a QME panel on claims which are denied. This decision is a significant development and benefit...

California 2nd District Modifies Holding and Disposition in Ex Parte Contact Case

The 2nd District Court of Appeals has issued its 2nd decision in the Alvarez v W.C.A.B. case addressing the issue of ex parte communication with a QME/AME prohibited under Labor Code § 4062.3. In its initial decision which issued earlier this year, the appellate court had adopted a strict interpretation...

California: Rule 30 is Dead; Long Live the New Rule

In an en banc decision that binds all trial judges, the WCAB has ruled that the dreaded Administrative Director Rule 30(d)(3) is invalid, and that a defendant may request and receive a proposed QME panel on a previously denied case. Rule 30(d)(3) read: “Whenever an injury or illness claim of an...

Cal. Comp. Cases August 2010 Advanced Postings (8/25/2010)

Here's the fourth batch of advanced postings for the August 2010 issue of Cal. Comp. Cases. Lexis.com subscribers can link to the cases below to read the complete headnotes and full case summaries. © Copyright 2010 LexisNexis. All rights reserved. Contra Costa County Fire Protection...

Lien Claimant’s PQME Reports Admitted Into Evidence: Cal. Comp. Cases February Advanced Postings (2/10/2012)

Here’s the second batch of advanced postings for the February 2012 issue of Cal. Comp. Cases. Lexis.com subscribers can link to the case to read the complete headnotes and summaries. County of Mendocino, PSI, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Willits, PSI, Aaron...