difference between the various
alternative forms of rating. The
court indicated that formal ratings
will take precedence over earlier
ratings.
the rater was 30.5 per cent. The
applicant appealed.
to April 25, 1991 section 9738 allowed
for the following types of ratings: (1)
formal ratings; (2) pretrial evaluations;
(3) informal ratings; (4) consultative
evaluations: and (5) compromise and
release evaluations. After April
25,1991 the law provides for (a) formal
rating determinations, (b) summary
rating determinations, (c) consultative
rating determinations, and (d) informal
rating determinations (section 10154).
The applicant wanted the higher rating
of 45.5 percent which the court stated
would have been a consultative rating
because it was requested prior to the
filing of a "Declaration of Readiness"
to proceed. The court indicated that
under former section 9758 this rating is
not admissible. Consultative or
summary ratings are not admissible in
judicial proceedings.
under section 10154, all other ratings
are essentially informal and not
admissible in judicial proceedings.
Instead, these informal ratings are for
assistance in reaching or reviewing
settlement agreements, not for
trial.
consultative, and informal ratings are
to help the parties try and settle the
matter. Only formal
the percentage of permanent
disability (See section 10158). Once
the matter goes to a contested trial all
the prior ratings will become
irrelevant and not be admissible or
used as evidence in the proceedings.
rating on the basis that the judge did
not instruct the rater to use the work
preclusions in the QME report, but to
rate on the objective and subjective
ratings of disability. The court found
the rater performed his duty correctly
and followed the judge's instructions.
WCAB
injuries and one cumulative trauma
that were all admitted injuries by the
carrier. These injuries occurred in
1991 and involved the upper
extremities and the right leg. The
applicant acted in pro.per. A
three-panel qualified medical
examiner (QME) report was obtained
in 1994. The applicant became
represented and asked for a summary
rating on the QME report. The
summary rating was for 45.5 per
cent. Neither party objected to this
rating determination. The case was
not settled on this rating and
subsequently went to trial. The judge
obtained a new rating. The rating
Firm: SAMUELSEN, GONZALEZ,
VALENZUELA, AND SORKOW
Phone: 310 831-0872
Address: 350 West 5th Street #105
San Pedro, CA 92625
Click here for printable version