California has seen an increase in the number of workers who work remotely from home. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the statewide stay-at-home order, employers across the state implemented changes to allow employees to work from home to keep their businesses running during the pandemic. Those changes are still being felt, as many employees want to work from home, and many employers continue to allow them to do so, either fully or partially.
California Code of Regulations 31.3 establishes the rules for scheduling appointments with a qualified medical evaluator (QME) selected from a panel. CCR 31.3(e) establishes when a QME must be available for an appointment and states, "If a party with the legal right to schedule an appointment with a QME is unable to obtain an appointment with a selected QME within ninety (90) days of the date of the appointment request, that party may waive the right to a replacement in order to accept an appointment no more than one-hundred-twenty (120) days after the date of the party's initial request for an appointment." CCR 31.3(e) also allows either party to report the QME's unavailability and requires a replacement panel to issue "when the selected QME is unable to schedule the evaluation within one-hundred-twenty (120) days of the date of that party's initial request for an appointment" unless the parties waive the time limit for scheduling an initial or subsequent evaluation. CCR 31.3(f) applies the provisions in CCR 31.3(e) to both comprehensive medical-legal evaluation by a QME and follow-up comprehensive medical-legal evaluations by a QME.
April was packed with energy, connection, and collaboration! From industry conferences to community gatherings (and even some courtside fun), the MS&A team stayed active, engaged, and future-focused. We’re always proud to show up, share knowledge, and build lasting relationships throughout California.
Scroll through the snapshots below to see how our teams came together to connect, contribute, and celebrate along the way.
If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!
Labor Code § 4062.2 establishes the procedure for selecting a qualified medical evaluator (QME) when an employee is represented by an attorney. Pursuant to LC 4062.2(c), each party has 10 days from assignment to strike a doctor from a panel, a period extended by the mailbox rule. (Messele v. Pitco Foods, Inc. (2011) 76 CCC 956 (appeals board en banc).) It adds that if a party fails to timely exercise a strike, "[T]he other party may select any physician who remains on the panel to serve as the medical evaluator."
Here’s a look back at some of the great moments MS&A had in March! From team-building fun to reconnecting with colleagues at industry events, it was a month full of connection and creativity. Check out the photos below to see how our teams came together to learn, grow, and unwind!
If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!
When an employee is injured during the course of employment due to the negligence of a third party, the worker may file a workers' compensation claim against the employer and a civil claim for damages against the responsible third party. An employee is entitled to workers' compensation benefits regardless of whether he or she or the employer was negligent in causing the injury. In the civil courts, however, comparative negligence applies, "the fundamental purpose of which shall be to assign responsibility and liability for damage in direct proportion to the amount of negligence of each of the parties." (Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 804, 829.)
February was a busy month for the MS&A team! We gained valuable insights at the 2025 PARMA Conference in Anaheim, connected with amazing people at the VICA Crab Feed, and enjoyed time with friends and colleagues at the EWC&R Conference. We also had the privilege of attending the John M. Langston Bar Association of Los Angeles’ 48th Annual Installation & Scholarship Awards Gala—an inspiring evening!
If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!
Video evidence is admissible in workers' compensation proceedings. Generally, it's obtained by a defendant after an applicant reports an injury and the defendant questions the applicant's credibility. This type of evidence can be called surveillance evidence or sub rosa evidence, and the parties often dispute when it must be produced.
The issue was addressed long ago in Downing v. City of Hayward (1988) 16 CWCR 76 (panel decision). In that case, the applicant's attorney objected to allowing his client's deposition because the defendant had failed to disclose whether or not it possessed surveillance films of him, and if it did, because it had failed to provide them to the attorney. Downing held that a defendant not only is not obligated to show any surveillance films prior to an applicant's deposition, but that it's also not obligated to disclose whether or not such films in fact exist. The WCAB explained:
