LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
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 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...

Five Recent Cases You Should Know About (8/20/2010)

Larson's Spotlight on Retaliatory Discharge, Subrogation, Ex Parte Communication, Volunteer Firefighter, Initial Physical Aggressor. Larson's surveys the latest case developments that you need to know about. Thomas A. Robinson, the staff writer for Larson's Workers' Compensation Law ...

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...