Get CEs for reading this column, click here!Maintaining impartiality requires striking from the record the reports and testimony of an independent medical examiner who engaged in ex-parte communications with an attorney, California’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals board has ruled.In the panel decision, Sergio Oseguera v. Links Communications issued Feb. 10, 2010, the WCAB...
Back to article
Comments (1):
“Congratulations to the AA and WCAB in applying a hyper-liberal interpretation of Rules and Regs §10718. The question is whether the communication was about the "...merits of the case.". Nothing in Alvarez or the current case suggests that the defense attorney was attempting to influence the doctor as to the merits of the case. Both were simply trying to provide the doctor with reqeusted documents. In this case, the documents were supposed to have been provided by the Judge. The doctor erred in contacting one of the attorneys. The attorney erred in believing that the AA would understand that the contact was in no way designed to influence the doctors opinion and in believing that this would therefore result in fair play by the AA. Once again, we see a clear illustration that it is all a game to the AA. If the judge felt the AME failed to properly address apportionment, and this therefore indicated his report was not substantial evidence, kudos to the judge. I agree. It is sad that most judges simply give applicant the PD award and ignore that portion discussing apportionment, picking and chosing the portions of the opinion they like. What is truly sad is that there is not a similar prohibition for AA's contacting the PTP's. Why not? Is it necessary for them to contact the PTP? Or if so, perhaps it should not be ex parte. But realistically, do you think the AA or PTP would ever admit to ex parte communication as the defense attorneys did in these two cases? Please.”
By: Floyd, Skeren Orange, 08/04/2010 01:27:21 am