|
|
|
Find Solutions & Strategies May 5, 2014 |
|
 The Assault on Independent Medical Review
Are reports of expert reviewers required to be signed? |
|
A Note From the Editor |
Our coverage of Dubon continues this week with a contribution from Corey Ingber, Esq.
Plus a special bonus! Two decisions applying Dubon provide further guidance on what constitutes a "material procedural defect." The third decision applies Navarro to AMEs.
Join our community. Sign up here to receive our free eNewsletter.
LexisNexis Legal & Professional Operations
|
WorkCompCentral Education |
|
|
|
the assault on imr |
Are the reports of expert reviewers required to be signed?
By Corey A. Ingber, Esq.
In the recent wake of the WCAB En Banc decision in Jose Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cas. 313, the IMR process is being very aggressively challenged by some applicants' attorneys, who are coming up with some interesting contentions and creative strategies designed to defeat and derail IMR. It also perceived by many applicants' attorneys that the WCAB is a much friendlier venue for a disputed medical treatment issue than Maximus. Fundamentally, must a UR report be signed by the expert reviewer? As a corollary, is the unsigned UR report therefore deemed a "material procedural defect" as measured by the decision in Dubon?...read more.
|
 |
two new noteworthy panel decisions on material procedural defects |
WCAB Applies Dubon, Provides Guidance on Medical Records Reasonably Needed for UR Physicians to Make a Valid Determination
The WCAB has applied Dubon in two recent noteworthy panel decisions finding material procedural defects in the UR process when the defendants did not provide medical records reasonably needed for the UR physicians to make a valid determination. In the first case, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was entitled to medical treatment as requested by his treating physician, including surgery, for an admitted right ankle injury. The WCAB found that...read more. |
 |
new noteworthy panel decision applies navarro to agreed medical examiners |
Navarro En Banc, Which Applied to QMEs, Also Applies Equally to AMEs
The WCAB, in a recent noteworthy panel decision, noted that the holding in Navarro, which applied to QMEs, also applies equally to AMEs. In this case, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's ruling that the applicant was not required to return to the prior agreed medical examiner for an evaluation of his new injury claim, when the parties had agreed to utilize the same orthopedic agreed medical examiner in three of the applicant's cases but not in the applicant's subsequently filed fourth injury case. The WCAB found that...read more. |
|
 |
 |
lexisnexis legal newsroom blogs |
Employer Violated Safety Order With Cigarette Smoke in Workplace: Cal. Comp. Cases May Advanced Postings (4/30/2014). Lexis.com and Lexis Advance subscribers can read it.
April Cal. Comp. Cases Citations Now Available. Lexis.com and Lexis Advance subscribers can read it.
Affordable Care Act: A New Body of Law With Lots of Moving Parts. Practical guidance on administering ObamaCare and other health plans, by Teresa McLoughlin Rice, Esq. Read it.
Pain in the Heartland, by Robin E. Kobayashi, JD. A recent article in The New Yorker examines opioid abuse by chronic pain patients and the notorious case and convictions of pill mill doctor Stephen Schneider and his wife. Read it.
|
california news headlines |
|
 |
NOTICE OF CORRECTION |
The DWC has brought to our attention an error in Table 1, Present Value of Permanent Disability, in Workers' Comp Laws of California, 2014 Edition. Access a corrected table here. We apologize for the error and inconvenience. |
enewsletter archives |
Take a deep dive into our past eNewsletters for 2014 and prior...warning - some links to articles may not work...report any linking problems to Robin.E.Kobayashi@lexisnexis.com.
|
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 © 2014 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
|
|
|