A Note From the Editor |
Dear WC Professionals:
The LexisNexis Workers' Compensation Law Center surpassed a half of million page views last week! Thanks for all your click thru's.
Sincerely,
Robin E. Kobayashi, J.D.
LexisNexis Editorial & Content Development
[email protected] |
|
How to Enter Our Raffle for California E-Disovery Book |
|
Purchase our 22-Year CD-ROM Archive of Workers' Comp Laws of Calif at *50% Off
and be eligible to win our new Calif. E-Discovery book
You must contact me first to obtain a promotional code for the CD-ROM archive at:
*Discount price is $51.50 plus tax, shipping & handling |
Keep our eNewsletter free |
|
Help spread the word about our free weekly eNewsletter | |
FEATURED ARTICLE: ogilvie rebuttals |
Robert G. Rassp, Esq., says that several WCAB panel decisions have issued since Ogilvie II was published on September 3, 2009, that clarify the scope and type of evidence the WCAB panels seem to require before any rebuttal of a scheduled DFEC rating is successful. These WCAB panel decisions ( Shini, Noriega-Garcia, Ochoa) are not binding authority other than the law of each case but they collectively demonstrate that the WCAB panels are not simply accepting the Ogilvie formula carte blanche for a DFEC rebuttal to occur in a case. Instead, the WCAB panels are indicating that a much higher standard of proof is needed in terms of substantiality and quality of evidence in order to sustain a successful DFEC rebuttal. Read the full article |
recent panel decisions - sneak preview |
Check out these recent panel decisions that we're considering for the LexisNexis� services:
Permanent Disability; Rating; AMA Guides. Agreed medical evaluator's report did not constitute substantial evidence under Almaraz-Guzman to rebut 28 percent impairment under AMA Guides, when AME reported that applicant lost 50 percent of his spinal function but did not (1) provide any whole person impairment assessment, (2) state that WPI under AMA Guides was not an accurate measure of applicant's impairment, (3) state that, based upon his experience, training and skill he would find a different impairment rating, (4) depart from specific recommendations in AMA Guides and draw analogies to AMA Guides' other chapters, tables, or methods, (5) describe applicant's impairment based upon other generally acceptable medical literature or criteria, (6) assess how permanent effects of injury impaired applicant's ability to perform work activities or medical consequences of performing certain work activities, (7) explain any alternative methodology, and (8) conduct an analysis of medical findings with respect to applicant's life activities and compare results of his analysis with impairment criteria. See Lorenz panel decision.
Medical Treatment; Reasonableness and Necessity. Although defendant was not liable for costs associated with spinal surgery performed on applicant with low back injury because surgery was neither reasonable nor necessary; defendant had liability for surgery to remove hardware placed in applicant's back at time of spinal surgery based upon opinion of agreed medical evaluator that removal of hardware was reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve from effects of "ill-advised" surgery, which would not have occurred but for applicant's industrial injury. See Urrea panel decision.
Average Weekly Wage Determinations; Mileage. Mileage expenses incurred by applicant should not be included in calculating his average weekly wage for purposes determining temporary disability rate based upon Labor Code � 4454, which excludes "special expenses" from earnings calculation, when $.40 per mile paid to applicant by defendant constituted a "special expense," different from fuel expenses, and that mileage reimbursement was not intended to provide an economic advantage to applicant so as to make Labor Code � 4454 inapplicable. See Muelrath panel decision. |
|
|