When do the exclusivity provisions of Labor Code section 3600 permit an action for law at damages? By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’...
Oakland, CA -- Payments for medical-legal evaluations and reports used to resolve medical disputes in California work injury claims have increased more than expected since a new Med-Legal Fee Schedule...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 6 June 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Robert G. Rassp and Hon. Clint Feddersen Questioning the Vocational Expert [a] Depositions Counsel will often need to take the deposition of the vocation expert. Live testimony of a vocational...
Oakland, CA – A bill that would give a presumption of compensability to farmworker heat-related injury claims if the employer is found to be out of compliance with Cal/OSHA’s outdoor heat illness...
Any information or opinions contained in this commentary are not necessarily endorsed by LexisNexis® or its affiliates or by the LexisNexis® editorial consultants who review panel decisions.
Recently, a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCALJ) and a panel of commissioners with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reminded practitioners in the California Workers’ Compensation System that the standards of conduct required of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QME’s) will be taken seriously. In Timothy Beecham v. Swift Transportation Services LLC, ADJ10084731, ADJ10084732, the WCALJ and WCAB panel found that a PQME’s comments that the employee’s markers were abnormally low for a person with “negro blood” constituted “impermissible racial or ethnic bias”. The PQME was removed from the case.
In this day and age of what many consider to be excessive litigation involving the removal of QME’s for hyper-technical reasons, it’s particularly important to remember that QME’s are not only required to comply with the procedural aspects of the Workers’ Compensation process. More importantly, they are required to conduct themselves with professional decency and specifically not render opinions or conclusions based on a worker’s race, sex, national origin, religion or sexual preference (8 Cal. Code Reg. § 41(c)(3)).
In conclusion, a significant distinction must be drawn when discussing the removal of QME for ethical reasons as contrasted with removing a QME for less serious and far more frequently seen procedural reasons. Indeed, practitioners would well advised to remember that fundamental to the Workers’ Compensation process is the fair and ethical treatment of the injured worker.
Read the Beecham noteworthy panel decision.
© Copyright 2018 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.
">