Click here for printable version

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

THE COURT OF APPEAL ISSUED A PUBLISHED DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF EX PARTE

COMMUNICATIONS WITH A PANEL QME

This is a published Court

of Appeal case

his is a very

significant case for

workers’ compensation

principles.

The applicant filed a

claim for workers’

compensation death

benefits.

The case proceeded to a

Panel qualified medical

evaluator (QME) to

determine causation

pursuant to section 4062.2.

M O N T H L Y R E P O R T

V O L U M E X V I N O . V I

J U N E 2 0 1 0

J U N E 2 0 1 0

J U N E 2 0 1 0

J U N E 2 0 1 0

C O M P E N S A T I O N N E W S

Editor: Harvey Brown

Firm: Samuelsen, Gonzalez,

Valenzuela and Brown

Address:

18881 Von Karman,

Suite 250, Irvine, California

92612

Phone: 949-252-1300

ALVAREZ V. WCAB, SCIF

ALVAREZ V. WCAB, SCIF

ALVAREZ V. WCAB, SCIF

ALVAREZ V. WCAB, SCIF

T

The QME wrote a report.

A deposition was taken of the

QME. The QME testified that

he had relied on records in

his report, but could not

identify the source of the

information.

The QME telephoned the

defense attorney, after the

deposition to obtain the

records. The defense attorney

wrote applicant attorney of

the telephone call. The

applicant attorney requested

the panel QME be stricken

under Labor Code section

4062.3, for ex parte

communications.

The Workers’ Compensa-

tion Judge (WCJ) found this

not to be an improper ex

parte communication. The

Workers’ Compensation

Appeals Board (WCAB)

agreed with the WCJ.

On appeal the appellate

court indicated that 4062.3

is very specific. No ex

parte communications are

allowed at all. The

legislature did not intend

to provide any exceptions.

Therefore, the panel QME

was stricken.