|
A Note From the Editor | |
Why did the WCAB agree to reconsider Dubon? The Cal. Chamber of Commerce's amicus brief in support of State Fund's Recon petition could provide the answers. The amicus petition will be explained July 26 at LawWorm's MCLE seminar. See box below.
Join our community today. Sign up here for our free eNewsletter.
Sincerely,
LexisNexis Legal & Professional Operations
|
|
|
Registration is Open!
Dealing With Dubon:
The En Bancs, Facts and
Friction of IMR. Plus,
Midyear Case Law Update.
Presiding Judge Paige Levy,
Marina del Rey
Judge Craig Glass,
Oxnard-Marina del Rey
Maurice Abarr, Esq.,
attorney for Jose Dubon
Corey Ingber, Esq.
Dennis Thomas, Esq.
Saturday, July 26
Long Beach Grand Event Center
4 MCLEs. Whatever Happens
to Dubon, We'll Talk About It.
or call (310) 822-1955.
Presented by LawWorm.com, an
MCLE provider with the CA Bar. | |
|
|
|
The range of evidence is alive and well |
One of the most challenging issues for a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) is to decide how to weigh medical evidence for the most accurate determination. Which physician's report is the more credible? Which diagnostic tool is the more accurate? Of the voluminous hospital records, which ones might be relevant to the injury at issue? What medical evidence rises to the level of substantial evidence? What constitutes "reasonable medical probability"? How should that standard be applied? And one of the most pressing questions of all; when is it appropriate to use the "range of evidence" as a basis to support a finding? Read more. |
 |
|
independent medical review: a new wave of litigation |
Includes commentary by Robert G. Rassp, Esq.
 Recent noteworthy panel decisions show that the burden is on the applicant to present all relevant medical reports and records, and citations to the MTUS, ACOEM, ODG, or other nationally accepted medical standards to the IMR reviewer, and that when a material mistake of fact occurs during the IMR process, all the WCJ can do is order the matter back to a different IMR reviewer
In the first noteworthy panel decision, the Appeals Board rescinded a WCJ's finding that an applicant/delivery driver with 7/3/2013 admitted industrial injury to his neck, back, left shoulder, left elbow, and head, was entitled to further medical care, including spinal surgery recommended by his treating physician, and returned the matter to the WCJ for development of the record by the treating physician regarding the requested surgery. The Appeals Board found that, contrary to the WCJ's determination that utilization review (UR) was defective due to the UR physician's lack of proper qualifications under Labor Code § 4610(e), the UR physician was qualified, as an orthopedic surgeon, to make a determination regarding back surgery. However, his UR denial was otherwise defective because...read more. |
|
Rassp & herlick: completely rewritten & reorganized - 3 year overhaul finished! |
We are pleased to announce that all chapters in this two-volume set are now completely rewritten and updated with the latest SB 863-related changes. Updates for customers will start shipping the end of June 2014.
Not a Rassp & Herlick subscriber yet? To pre-order, contact Judi Dunham-Matias at 1-937-247-8179 or Judith.P.Dunham@lexisnexis.com.
|
|
The Range of Evidence Is Alive and Well
May CCC cites now available. Lexis.com and Lexis Advance subscribers can 
