New 2012 Edition

By Robert G. Rassp, Esq.

Order Print Version.

Order eBook.

Order eBook.

Amazon� Kindle™ and other Mobipocket readers

Catching Up on Some Zs in California - Sleep Disorders, by Robert G. Rassp, Esq. Whole person impairment ratings for sleep disorders in Table 13-4, and the instructions for use on page 317 of the AMA Guides Fifth Edition have created conflicting WCAB panel decisions on whether a sleep disorder can exist as a stand-alone WPI rating or if it is limited to a 3% WPI pain related impairment add-on under Chapter 18 of the AMA Guides Fifth Edition and page 1-12 of the 2005 PDRS. Remember, sleep is also considered to be an "activity of daily living (ADL)" under Table 1-2 on page 4. Two recent WCAB panel decisions reflect the controversy where one panel decision does not allow a stand-alone sleep disorder rating while another one does. What is interesting about these two panel decisions is that two out of three WCAB commissioners were the same in both cases. > Read more.

Lien Litigation: Appeals Board May Be Closely Scrutinizing Tactics and Practices for Frivolous and Bad Faith Actions. Some observers of the Appeals Board have noticed what may be a trend of the Board more closely scrutinizing the actions of litigants in lien litigation and more readily sanctioning litigants for bad faith or frivolous actions. Three recent panel decisions may be examples of this trend. Our headnote for one of these decisions - Campos - is set forth below.

Sanctions; Lien Claimant. WCAB affirmed WCJ's imposition of $2,500 sanction and award of attorney's fees under LC 5813 and 8 CCR 10561(b) against lien claimant who provided interpreting services to applicant with 3/26/2008 industrial injuries to her head, neck, hand, back, and psyche, when lien claimant failed to appear at scheduled lien conference on 9/7/2011, it was unclear whether lien claimant appeared through attorney or hearing representative at subsequent conference on 10/26/2011, and WCAB found that, since only evidence offered by lien claimant was a statement dated 10/21/2011 for $351 purportedly for interpreting at a functional capacity evaluation and an occupational profile analysis occurring on 5/13/2008, lien claimant failed to even remotely approach burden of proof necessary to establish its lien, thereby justifying WCJ's conclusion that lien claimant was bringing a claim or asserting a position that was indisputably without merit and/or presenting a claim or raising an issue that was not warranted under the law. See Campos panel decision.