We had a blast at the AAWCP Nor-Cal Summer Mixer last Saturday! Check out these snapshots from an unforgettable evening of networking and fun!
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, Facebook, and Twitter. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!
On Aug. 1, 2023, the 2nd District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Earley v. WCAB invalidating the long-standing practice of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to grant petitions for reconsideration without first deciding whether reconsideration is warranted. The court held that grant-for-study orders violated Labor Code § 5908.5. But it also held that the WCAB is not required to issue a final ruling on the merits within 60 days. This case was discussed in detail in our previous article.[1]
Fascinating insights from WCIRB California's 2023 State of the System report! California CT claims were up between 2011 and 2019, primarily due to claims filed in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas. While 2020 saw a significant increase in claims filed in Los Angeles, the number of statewide CT claims returned to approximately pre-pandemic levels in 2021.
It's time for the July Rhino Round-up! Summer is here and we enjoyed some great events with our clients and colleagues, while simmering in the California sunshine.
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, Facebook, and Twitter. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!
On Aug. 1, 2023, the 2nd District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Earley v. WCAB invalidating the long-standing practice of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to grant petitions for reconsideration without first deciding whether reconsideration is warranted. It held that pursuant to Labor Code § 5908.5, the WCAB must state in detail the reasons for its decision to grant reconsideration and the evidence that supports it. But it also held that the WCAB is not required to issue a final ruling on the merits within 60 days.
California employers scored a victory this week, as both the CA Supreme Court and US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit confirmed that employers owe no duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID to members of their employees’ households. The facts of the case, Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., were actually super interesting!
As a furniture and construction company with jobsites all over California, Victory was declared an essential business during the COVID lockdowns of 2020. While the lockdown was ongoing, several employees at one of its jobsites contracted COVID. Instead of requiring its non-infected employees at that site to quarantine, Victory reassigned them to other jobsites, including Mr. Kuciemba’s, in violation of the health orders in place at the time. Not surprisingly, one of the reassigned employees gave Mr. Kuciemba COVID, and in turn, Mr. Kuciemba gave it to his wife. While she was fortunate enough to survive her bout with COVID, she was hospitalized for a considerable time, during part of which she required a respirator to breathe. The Kuciembas sued Victory, claiming (among other things) that Victory caused Mrs. Kuciemba’s injuries by negligently failing to protect its employees from the spread of COVID.
The California Supreme Court just handed down its long-awaited decision in Adolf v. Uber Technologies, Inc., (“Uber”), and you are probably wondering how that ruling affects the arbitration agreements you have in place with your employees.
The short answer is: it doesn’t. Exhale!
The Labor Code describes different procedures for requesting a panel of qualified medical evaluators (QMEs). Labor Code § 4062.1 controls the procedure by which parties may obtain a medical evaluation to address a disputed issue pursuant to LC 4060, LC 4061 and LC 4062 when the employee is not represented by an attorney. LC 4062.2 establishes the procedure when an employee is represented by an attorney.
Pursuant to LC 4062.1(b), either party may request a QME panel per LC 4060, LC 4061 and LC 4062 by submitting the form prescribed by the administrative director requesting the medical director to assign a panel of three QMEs. In unrepresented cases, the California Code of Regulations § 30(a)(1) states that for disputes covered by LC 4060, the requesting party must attach the claims administrator's notice that the claim was denied or a copy of the claims administrator's request for an examination to determine compensability. For disputes covered by LC 4061 or LC 4062, CCR 30(a)(2) states that "[I]f the requesting party is the claims administrator, the claims administrator shall attach a written objection indicating the identity of the primary treating physician, the date of the primary treating physician's report that is the subject of the objection and a description of the medical determination that requires a comprehensive medical-legal report."
