Blog

Compensability of Injury From Government-Mandated COVID-19 Vaccination

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Oct 19, 2021 10:30:00 AM

Topics: Special Reports COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of COVID-19 vaccines to enhance people's ability to resist infection by the virus. Vaccines are widely available, and many employers are deciding whether to require employees to be vaccinated (or incentivize them) as a condition for returning to work. For some employees, however, COVID-19 vaccinations are or will be mandated by the government. The federal Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced that it's developing a rule requiring all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure that their workforce is fully vaccinated or that workers who remain unvaccinated produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work. In California, certain employees already are required to be vaccinated as a condition of employment. California has ordered that all health-care workers must be vaccinated unless they are exempt for religious or medical reasons. It has...

Read more

MPN Access Standards If an Employee Chooses to Treat with a Specialist

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Sep 21, 2021 10:00:00 AM

Topics: Workers Compensation MPN PTP

For a medical provider network (MPN) to be valid, it must offer access and a certain degree of choice for the injured worker. Labor Code 4616(a)(1) states, "The provider network shall include an adequate number and type of physicians, as described in Section 3209.3, or other providers, as described in Section 3209.5, to treat common injuries experienced by injured employees based on the type of occupation or industry in which the employee is engaged..." It also requires an MPN to include physicians based on "the geographic area where the employees are employed." Accordingly, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 9767.5 establishes the access standards for a valid MPN. CCR 9767.5(a) requires an MPN to "have at least three available physicians of each specialty to treat common injuries experienced by injured employees based on the type of occupation or industry in which the employee is engaged and within the access standards set forth in (1) and (2)." CCR 9767.5(a)(1) requires an MPN...

Read more

DWC Announces In-Person Trials Starting Oct. 1, 2021

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Sep 1, 2021 8:00:00 AM

Topics: COVID-19 Rules DWC WCAB

On Sept. 1, 2021, the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) announced that in-person hearings will resume starting Oct. 1, 2021, at almost all of the DWC district offices. The only exceptions are Eureka, which is now a completely virtual office, and satellite locations Bishop, Marysville, Chico and Ukiah, which also will remain virtual.

Read more

Accumulation of Permanent Disability Awards to Body Regions Under LC 4664(c)

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Aug 17, 2021 8:00:00 AM

Topics: Apportionment Permanent Disability Awards

When defendants seek to apportion an applicant's permanent disability, most often they look to apply Labor Code § 4663, which directs that apportionment be based on causation. LC 4663 requires a physician to consider factors both before and subsequent to the industrial injury, and the courts have not limited what can be apportioned under § 4663. They have allowed defendants to apportion to asymptomatic previous conditions, risk factors and even genetic factors. The only limitation has been that to apportion under § 4663, the physician's opinion about apportionment must be substantial evidence. Labor Code § 4664 is the other statute that addresses apportionment in the California workers' compensation system, and it allows apportionment to a previous award of permanent disability benefits. LC 4664(b) states, "If the applicant has received a prior award of permanent disability, it shall be conclusively presumed that the prior permanent disability exists at the time of any subsequent...

Read more

Consolidation of Cases for the Purposes of Discovery

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Jul 14, 2021 4:30:00 PM

Topics: discovery CCR 10396 cases

California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 10396, gives the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board discretion to consolidate two or more related cases. This authority commonly is used when a worker claims more than one injury as a result of his or her employment. Consolidation in such cases often is uncontested because it's more efficient for all parties for all of the cases to be heard and decided in a single proceeding. Consolidation, however, is not limited to cases involving a single employee. CCR 10396 also allows the WCAB to consolidate cases involving multiple injured workers after considering relevant factors, including, but not limited to:

Read more

Actual Event of Employment Under LC 3208.3(b)(1)

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Jun 15, 2021 10:00:00 AM

Topics: psychiatric injury LC 3208.3 Objective Evidence

Labor Code § 3208.3(b)(1) requires a psychiatric injury to be caused predominantly by "actual events of employment." The Court of Appeal has recognized that "The phrase 'actual events of employment' does not provide clear guidance because it is 'susceptible to many meanings.'" (Verga v. WCAB (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 174, 185.) It noted that "The intent of the statute was 'to establish a new and higher threshold of compensability for psychiatric injury' and to 'limit claims for psychiatric benefits due to their proliferation and their potential for fraud and abuse.'" (Verga v. WCAB (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 174, 185.)

Read more

Applied Materials v. WCAB: 6th District Court of Appeal Holds That Physician Misconduct Is Compensable, But Upholds Fitzpatrick

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Jun 14, 2021 4:30:00 PM

Topics: AMA Guides Fitzpatrick Medical Treatment Ogilvie

On June 1, 2021, the 6th District Court of Appeal certified for publication its decision in Applied Materials et al. v. WCAB. The decision can be reviewed on the California courts' website. In that case, the Court of Appeal issued a lengthy, 73-page decision addressing multiple issues raised by the parties. The decision is most significant for two issues:

Read more

Obtaining the Voucher After Settlement

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on May 18, 2021 10:31:00 AM

Topics: voucher return to work voucher C&R

Sometimes, parties settle a claim by way of compromise and release (C&R) before the injured worker is released from care. There are various reasons why they might agree do this. Employees might want to avoid the delays and risks in the litigation process. Employers might want to avoid discovery and litigation costs, and to close the file. Although most issues can be resolved as part of a C&R, Labor Code § 4658.7(g) precludes settlement or commutation of a claim for the supplemental job displacement benefit (SJDB) voucher for injuries occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2013. But an employee is not automatically entitled to the voucher. Pursuant to § 4658.7(b), an employee is entitled to the voucher only if the injury causes permanent partial disability and the employer does not make a timely offer of regular, modified or alternative work.

Read more

QME Evaluations Via Telehealth

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Apr 7, 2021 11:07:00 AM

Topics: COVID-19 QME COVID Telehealth

Because of the backlog of medical-legal evaluations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) adopted emergency regulations for medical-legal evaluations and reporting. The regulations became effective May 14, 2020, and originally were set to expire March 12, 2021. But they have been extended until Oct. 12, 2021.See DIR Newsline dated March 10, 2021.

Read more

Temporary Disability Benefits Due To Covid-19 Stay-At-Home Orders

Posted by:  Sure S. Log on Oct 20, 2020 2:30:00 PM

Topics: Announcements Special Reports COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has had significant financial consequences for many employers and employees. Due to the overall need to protect the public at large from the spread of COVID-19, the state of California and many local governments have issued stay-at-home orders, closing nonessential businesses or allowing them to remain open only if their employees could telecommute. Many businesses were forced to shut down during the stay-at-home orders, and many employees found themselves out of work.

Read more