Vol. V No. 2
FEBRUARY 1999
COMPENSATION
NEWS
MONTHLY REPORT
DISCOVERY CANNOT BE LEFT
OPEN AFTER CONFERENCE
section 4628 for failure to state what
was relied on in forming the QME's
opinion. The QME had also issued a
one page report with no reference to
records provided to the doctor. The
WCJ overruled the defendant's
objection and left discovery open to
obtain a supplemental report from
applicant's QME.
The QME submitted a one page
supplemental report. The WCJ found
temporary disability based on this
report issued after the MSC. The WCJ
did not rule on defendant's objection.
The WCJ disallowed defendant's
medical report on the basis that
defendant was not entitled to a rebuttal
QME. The defendant petitioned for
reconsideration. The Workers'
Compensation Appeals Board upheld
the WCJ findings and award. The
defendant filed for writ of review and
the applicant did not respond.
The appellate court addressed section
5502, subdivision (d) (3). The section
deals with the closure of discovery at
the time of the mandatory settlement
conference. "The bounds of discretion
vested in the workers' compensation
judge for keeping discovery open after
the mandatory settlement conference
are defined in section 5502. Discovery
closes at the
This Estrada case did not deal with
rehabilitation, but may be just as
significant as the other recent
Estrada case. This appellate decision
deals with a workers' compensation
judge's (WCJ) authority to allow
additional discovery after a
mandatory settlement conference.
time of the mandatory settlement
conference as to all evidence except
for which the proponent can
demonstrate was not available or
could not have been discovered by the
exercise of due diligence prior to the
settlement conference." In this
situation the WCJ did not have
discretion to allow a supplemental
report.
The appellate court also indicated
discovery could not be kept open in
this case by giving a continuance
since there was no showing of good
cause for granting a continuance.
What the case teaches is that both
sides should make sure they are
prepared and ready to proceed at the
mandatory settlement conference.
COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO V.
WCAB
(ESTRADA)
In this case the applicant obtained an
evaluation from a qualified medical
examiner (QME). The applicant
wished to rely on this and filed for an
expedited hearing. Somehow, a
mandatory settlement conference was
set. The defendant objected to
applicant's QME exam. Defendant
objected on the basis of Labor Code
CONTENTS
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V.
WCAB (ESTRADA)

.................
1
Editor: HARVEY BROWN
Firm: SAMUELSEN, GONZALEZ,
VALENZUELA AND SORROW
Phone: 310 831-0872
Address: 350 West 5th St
San Pedro
CA 90731
Click here for printable version