To sign up for this free eNewsletter, click here. Find out why your colleagues have come to rely on our weekly news and articles. 

Sincerely,

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 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 conceptually, the idea of having one doctor evaluate an injured worker instead of two doctors with diametrically opposed opinions seemed like a good idea. Much like Dr. Frankenstein probably had a good idea at the outset, people are increasingly viewing the Panel QME process and the gamesmanship and hyper-technical arguments it fosters as, well, a monster. Read more.

The OSHA Regulatory Burden: New Study Debunks Job Killer, Anti-Competitive Theories. It is a truth universally acknowledged that OSHA workplace regulations are unduly burdensome, negatively impacting an employer's competitiveness and destroying jobs for workers. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration is one of the most controversial regulatory agencies in our country. A debate has raged for years over whether workplace safety inspections and regulations correlate with a decline in injury rates and with lower productivity. A new study by economic experts, headed by David I. Levine at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, has been published in the latest issue of Science, finding there is no evidence that ...Read more.

Here's a sneak preview of a recent noteworthy panel decision that will be added to the LexisNexis services soon:

In last week's issue of the eNewsletter, Robert Rassp analyzed County of San Bernardino v. WCAB/McCoy. We've received a response from the Deputy County Counsel in the case  (see Comments section at the end of the web page). Note: The Supreme Court denied review and denied the request for depublication on May 16, 2012.