LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
California: What Constitutes an Ex-Parte Communication Post-Alvarez?

There have been a number of cases decided by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dealing with Labor Code Section 4062.3 and what constitutes a prohibited ex parte communication with a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME). Though many thought the Court of Appeal’s decision in...

California Panel QME Process: Is It Time to Admit We Are Dealing With a Monster?

A serious question needs to be asked about whether requiring the use of one Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in a workers’ compensation case, as opposed to the use of “battling QME’s”, has reduced litigation or has actually served to increase litigation. No question, at least...

California: Replacing the Panel QME: Survey of Recent Noteworthy Panel Decisions

© Copyright 2014 LexisNexis. All rights reserved. I. Evolution of the Current Panel QME Process The Panel QME process has evolved in interesting ways over the years. For dates of injury prior to 2005, the panel QME process did not exist. Instead, medical disputes were resolved by Qualified...

California: W.C.A.B. Rules ADR 35.5(e) Invalid

The W.C.A.B. has issued an en banc decision on an issue that comes up fairly frequently before the W.C.A.B.—the application of Rule 35.5 to QME where an injured worker has multiple injuries to similar parts of the body with the same parties. Rule 35.5(e) would suggest the employee is limited to...