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."
Date & Time: June 14th, 2023 - 11:00 AM - 12:00PM
Register at: msa.news/06-14-23-webinar
California employers are not strangers to the ever-evolving minefield of compliance exposure under our unique employee-friendly state laws. Join employment law trial attorney Eric De Wames on June 14th, for an attorney’s perspective on key trends and common pitfalls in the wage and hour world. Get up to speed on the latest trends and strategies to avoid litigation exposure and defend claims when they arise. Attendees will obtain insights on pros and cons to arbitration agreements, PAGA action trends, and compliance suggestions to avoid exposure.
Space is limited, so register today!
PIHRA's 2023 California HR Conference was a resounding success! It was great to spend time with our valued clients, co-workers, and colleagues.
MS&A Managing Partner, Eric De Wames, and PIHRA President, Tara Fournier, presented the latest installment of their ongoing session "Building Airplanes in Flight (episode 9)" on Day 2 of the conference. Their session was a crowd favorite, offering insights into creating a healthy workplace environment while maintaining compliance with California's strict employment laws. MS&A's Happy Hour at Gladstone's was another highlight of the conference. Thank you to everyone who joined us and made it such a memorable evening! Thanks as well to those who stopped by our booth to say hello and learn more about the firm. We hope we’ll see you in the fall at PIHRA’s CELU23!
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has ended the COVID-19 state of emergency in California. While it was in effect, however, the workers' compensation system was subject to numerous changes and disruptions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) moved toward remote hearings, and Gov. Newsom issued an executive order extending specified time limits established in the Labor Code and administrative regulations.
Generally, an employer must deny a claim within 90 days to avoid a presumption that it's compensable. Labor Code 5402(b)(1) states, "If liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the claim form is filed under Section 5401, the injury shall be presumed compensable under this division." Once the presumption attaches, it can be rebutted only by evidence that could not have been obtained with the exercise of reasonable diligence within the 90-day period. (SCIF v. WCAB (Welcher) (1995) 60 CCC 717.)
On February 3, 2023, Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Non-Emergency Standards was approved and became effective. The Non-Emergency Standards will remain in effect until February 3, 2025, and can be found at https://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb/documents/COVID-19-Prevention-Non-Emergency-apprvdtxt-oal.pdf.
The Non-Emergency Standards relax several previously mandatory requirements and have modified some important definitions.
The following are changes employers need to be aware of and implement.
In represented cases in which a panel of qualified medical evaluators (QMEs) is required to resolve a disputed issue, Labor Code 4062.2(c) states, "Within 10 days of assignment of the panel by the administrative director, each party may strike one name from the panel." Pursuant to Messele v. Pitco Foods, Inc. (2011) 76 CCC 956 (appeals board en banc), it has been well recognized that the mailbox rule applies to that process. So, when a QME panel is served, a party generally is given 10 days from the assignment of it, plus five days for mail, to strike a name from the panel.
