CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 5 May 2023 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board In 2022 there were 7,490 wildfires in California. They burned 362,455 acres...
By Christopher Mahon Should temporary workers be treated separately under workers’ compensation law due to additional employment and income risks they may incur after workplace injuries? A new study...
Here's a noteworthy panel decision where a family member conveyed essential information to the AME on behalf of the injured employee. The Lexis headnote is below. CA - NOTEWORTHY PANEL DECISIONS...
Oakland, CA – Part II of a California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) research series on low- volume/high-cost drugs used to treat California injured workers identifies three Dermatological drugs...
FREE ENEWSLETTER; SIGN UP TODAY HERE Here's a sneak peek of a recent noteworthy panel decision that will be added soon to the LexisNexis services: Medical-Legal Procedure; Assignment of QME Panel. WCAB granted removal and rescinded WCJ’s order that applicant violated LC 4062.2(c) by striking name from panel QME list prematurely, thereby nullifying the strike, when WCAB found that (1) although LC 4062.2(c) envisions that parties will use 10-day period after assignment of a panel to meaningfully confer on an AME, if a party strikes a name during 10-day period, that strike is not automatically rendered a nullity under LC 4062.2(c), (2) if a party strikes a name from panel during 10-day period, responding party has remainder of 10 days plus 3 working days to strike a name, (3) in such a circumstance, responding party must communicate that strike to initial striking party on or before the 13th day after assignment, without using additional 10 days outlined in LC 4062.2(d) to simultaneously issue notice of panel QME appointment and strike implied by making appointment, and (4) although applicant requested a new panel in her petition for reconsideration, LC 4062.2(c) clearly mandates that after each party has exercised a strike, remaining QME shall serve as medical evaluator. See Guillen panel decision.
Here's a sneak peek of a recent noteworthy panel decision that will be added soon to the LexisNexis services:
Medical-Legal Procedure; Assignment of QME Panel.