California Banner 2012 Chess Board
Vol. 3, Issue 11

Find Solutions & Strategies                              March 12, 2012

Reconsideration RemovalThe Important Distinctions Between Reconsideration and Removal
 
And how not to incorrectly plead your cases
In This Issue
* RECON & REMOVAL
* REPLACEMENT PQME
* SPECIAL OFFER EXPIRES SOON
* DWC STAFF NEWS: Clarke, Fudem, Patterson
* BLOG ROUND UP: Fraud, CCCs, Ogilvie
* NEWS HEADLINES: AIG $450M Settlement
* eNEWSLETTER ARCHIVES

A Note From the Editor

Robin Kobayashi 2010

Dear WC Professionals:  

 

This is the final week to take advantage of discounts on some of our print and ebook titles. Contact Christine Hyatt today. See her message below.

 

Sign up for this free eNewsletter by sending me your full name and email address, along with your request for the Calif. edition.

 

Sincerely,

Robin E. Kobayashi, J.D.
LexisNexis Legal & Professional Operations

LexisNexis eBooks

ebooks shelf

Same trusted LexisNexis content. 

Whenever you're ready. Wherever you are.

 

Complete List of eBooks.

reconsideration & removal

The Important Distinctions Between Reconsideration and Removal. Commonly, when appealing an adverse determination of a WCJ, a practitioner will file a petition for reconsideration, and, in the alternative, a petition for removal. There are significant differences between the two remedies, and practitioners may be well advised to know the difference. As most practitioners know, reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision or award. Interlocutory procedural orders are not final orders within the meaning of LC 5900. Discovery or non-final orders may be subject to removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that will be denied absent substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Yet, despite the very significant distinctions between the two remedies, practitioners continue to incorrectly plead their cases. > Read more. 

recent panel decision: pqme

Replacement PQMEs. WCAB granted defendant's petition for removal and rescinded WCJ's order denying defendant's petition to compel applicant's attendance at a re-evaluation with panel QME and WCJ's finding that a replacement panel QME must be provided pursuant to Rule 34(b) because panel QME who originally evaluated applicant had moved his office from Anderson to Redding since initial evaluation and was, therefore, "unavailable," when WCAB found that (1) language in LC 4062.3(j) indicated a legislative intent to prevent QME selection process from restarting if there is a reasonable possibility that injured worker return to same evaluator, so as to minimize medical-legal costs and thwart attempts to doctor-shop, (2) in light of interpretation of LC 4062.3(j), Rule 34(b), which requires that a comprehensive medical-legal examination be conducted only at medical office listed on the panel selection form, applies only to initial comprehensive medical-legal evaluation by panel QME, (3) Rule 36(d), which provides that a new panel may be issued to resolve disputed issues if original QME is unavailable, applies to supplemental comprehensive medical-legal evaluations, and (4) panel QME does not become "unavailable" merely because QME moves office to another location "within the general geographic area of the employee's residence." See the Frink panel decision.

ATTN: DWC CONFERENCE ATTENDEES

Christine Hyatt

FINAL WEEK TO SAVE MONEY: DWC Conference Attendees in Los Angeles & Oakland: Take Advantage of Special Deals Through March 15, 2012, by Christine Hyatt, LexisNexis. All Los Angeles and Oakland attendees can take advantage of special conference discounts through March 15, 2012. Whether you want print or ebook, we've got your research solutions:

 

*Herlick, Calif. Workers' Comp. Handbook (2012 Ed.)

*Workers' Comp. Laws of Calif. (2012 Ed.)

*Calif. WCAB Noteworthy Panel Decisions Reporter

*Lawyer's Guide to AMA Guides & Calif. WC (2012 Ed.)

*Complete Guide to MSP Compliance (2011 Ed.)

 

To take advantage of this offer, contact me asap:

Toll free: 1-800-424-4200 Ext. 3149

Email: Christine.E.Hyatt@lexisnexis.com

Fax: 1-800-624-8278

dwc staff NEWS

> Thomas Clarke was appointed Associate Chief Judge for the North, eff. Mar. 1.

> Mark Fudem was appointed Associate Chief Judge for Central California and EAMS, eff. Mar.1.

> Kathy Patterson, former DEU supervisor, is now manager of the Medical Unit.

blogs at the lexisnexis workers' comp law community 

 

Fraud Sign

Workers' Comp Fraud Blotter -  Former Elected Official With Wet Hair Indicted on Federal Fraud Charges, by LexisNexis Workers' Compensation Law Community Staff. Read it.   

   

 

 

Cal Comp CasesCal. Comp. Cases. The January 2012 monthly issue with CCC cites is now online. Lexis.com subscribers can access the complete headnotes and cases. Read it.   

 

 

 

Connie BastianObtaining Substantial Evidence From Vocational Rehabilitation Experts in Ogilvie Cases, by Connie Bastian, J.D. A handy checklist was provided to attendees at the recent DWC Educational Conference. Read it.

 

 

NEWS HEADLINES

enewsletter archives

Take a deep dive into our past eNewsletters for 2012 and prior...warning - some links to articles may not work...report any linking problems to Robin.E.Kobayashi@lexisnexis.com.

March 5, 2012: Rise and Fall of the COLA.
LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. Other products or services may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

Privacy & Security Copyright 2012 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.