AI Analysis:
This message is highly relevant for evaluating Montarbo on multiple grounds: (1) 'RICHARD MONTARBO' appears directly in the subject line of both the original inquiry and the reply, (2) Steve Schulman is explicitly requesting insight into Montarbo's litigation tactics, and (3) Dane P. Gilliam provides a substantive firsthand assessment describing Montarbo as a 'good old-school DA,' noting he does not dispute small issues, sees the big picture, and tends to settle larger cases more quickly than most defense attorneys. This information is directly useful for determining how easy or difficult Montarbo is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
"Dane P. Gilliam" Date: July 01, 2024 1:18:00 PM Subject: Re: RICHARD MONTARBO Reply to list Reply to sender Print We have had a few cases with Montarbo. I think he is a good old-school DA that sees the big picture and does not try to dispute small issues. He tries to settle bigger cases quicker than most. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Steve Schulman (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2024 11:32 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL][lawnet] RICHARD MONTARBO List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Schulman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mr. Montarbo has been substituted in on one of my cases involving some penalty issues. I know he has appeared in some CAAA conventions. Looking for any insight into his litigation tactics. Feel Free to respond privately. Steven B. Schulman, Esq. Law Office of Steven B. Schulman 10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 (858) 863-8000, Fax (858) 863-6901
AI Analysis:
This message is highly relevant for evaluating Richard Montarbo. The subject line explicitly names 'RICHARD MONTARBO', and the message contains multiple firsthand accounts about dealing with him: (1) Guy Medford describes settling a difficult death case with him, notes he 'top sheeted' a 5-year-old file after subbing in, required education on the case before understanding it, is 'old school' and better suited for uncomplicated cases, and relies heavily on his assistant; (2) Heather Siles shares 30 years of experience dealing with him, describing him as knowledgeable, generally reasonable, someone she consults for defense perspective, conducts short depositions, and proposes reasonable resolutions in penalty situations when his client was at fault; (3) Steve Schulman's original inquiry asks specifically about Montarbo's litigation tactics after he subbed into a penalty case. All three contributions provide direct, actionable insight into Montarbo's negotiation style, litigation approach, professionalism, and temperament from applicant attorneys' perspectives.
"Guy Medford" Date: June 29, 2024 1:12:00 AM Subject: Re: RICHARD MONTARBO Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Guy Medford Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings He settled a very difficult death case with me, super effort, but he top sheeted the 5 year old battle after subbing in. Maybe he was just testing me, but it didn't seem so. I had to educate him on the case and when he finally got it, he got the money needed to wrap it up. He is old school which is OK for uncomplicated cases, and generally a nice guy. He did rely heavily on his Saint of an assistant too. Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 12:18 PM, Heather Siles (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Heather Siles Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings We have dealt with RIchard Montrabo for 30ish years and on numerous cases. He knows the law and is generally reasonable as long as you are being reasonable. He is also someone that I will occasionally call to get the defense perspective on a case. Depositions are usually very short. In my experience, If he feels his client was wrong in a penalty situation, he will usually propose a reasonable resolution. Heather L. Siles* Law Offices of Siles & Foster, P.C. 2064 Talbert Drive, Ste 100, Chico, CA 95928 P: 530-898-9600 *Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist, CA State Bar Board of Legal Specialization On Friday, June 28, 2024 at 11:32:15 AM PDT, Steve Schulman (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Schulman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mr. Montarbo has been substituted in on one of my cases involving some penalty issues. I know he has appeared in some CAAA conventions. Looking for any insight into his litigation tactics. Feel Free to respond privately. Steven B. Schulman, Esq. Law Office of Steven B. Schulman 10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 (858) 863-8000, Fax (858) 863-6901
AI Analysis:
This message is highly relevant for evaluating Montarbo. The attorney's full name 'Richard Montarbo' appears in the subject line of the original message. The thread contains detailed firsthand accounts of dealing with Montarbo, including: (1) a specific tactic he allegedly uses of inserting an 'imaginary' Compromise & Release with Cumulative Trauma through last date of employment that was not negotiated, (2) a reference to a prior 2014 post confirming he has used this same tactic for at least 10 years, (3) identification of the insurance company he represents (BHHC), (4) a characterization of him as a 'bully' by a responding attorney, and (5) the original attorney's frustration with his negotiating tactics. All of this is directly useful for assessing how difficult Montarbo is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
"Rando Rodriguez" Date: March 26, 2024 12:45:00 PM Subject: Re: NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Rando Rodriguez Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Matthew, I would discuss the issue with the client, but I would recommend to the client that we say "no" to Mr. Montarbo. Mr. Montarbo is essentially altering the deal in a potentially unfavorable way. Darth Vader did that to Lando in Episode V. I think the client might appreciate you standing up to the bully here. Rando -----Original Message----- From: matt@kellerlawchico.com Sent: March 25, 2024 4:03:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R Going back to prior posts I see a post from Ms. Gushi (NorCal AA now retired) back in 2014 stating Richard Montarbo was insisting on CT through last date of employment with C&R. He is still doing it. Rich represents BHHC. We negotiated C&R (specific injury, my client hit by drunk driver). Rich sends C&R with made up CT through last date of employment. I refuse. This was 2 months ago. He is stating ins. co is insists on CT in order to C&R. Which is garbage since I've settled multiple cases with BHHC in the last few years and none have included a CT through last date worked. He created the problem. I was thinking (not going to but tempted) of sending cover letter to ER with DWC 1 stating "There is no evidence of CT. No doctor has indicated any CT. However the defense attorney is insistent that a CT claim be filed in order to C&R." The only other DA I have ever had do this was Eric Helphrey with Stockwell Sac one time 15 years ago. Total garbage.
AI Analysis:
Richard Montarbo is named directly in the subject line ('NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R') and is the central subject of the thread. The message contains detailed firsthand accounts of negotiating with Montarbo, describing a specific tactic he employs — insisting on including a cumulative trauma (CT) claim as a condition of settling via C&R, even when no medical evidence supports it. The original poster (Matthew Verduzco/Keller) notes this behavior dates back to at least 2014 (per a prior post from Ms. Gushi) and that Montarbo is 'still doing it,' indicating a consistent pattern. The message also identifies which insurance company he represents (BHHC), characterizes his tactic as 'garbage,' and describes the frustration of dealing with him. Hollie Rutkowski's reply offers a strategic workaround, further confirming the thread is substantively about Montarbo's negotiating behavior. All of this is highly relevant for evaluating how difficult he is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: March 25, 2024 4:12:00 PM Subject: Re: NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Tell Montarbo that you want him to get a WCAB number for the CT, so that it can be settled with C&R. Then when you get the WCAB number, you can either play nice and settle both cases in C&R, or you can settle the specific injury and litigate the CT. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 2:02:55 PM Subject: [lawnet] NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R List: lawnet Sent By: Matthew Keller Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Going back to prior posts I see a post from Ms. Gushi (NorCal AA now retired) back in 2014 stating Richard Montarbo was insisting on CT through last date of employment with C&R. He is still doing it. Rich represents BHHC. We negotiated C&R (specific injury, my client hit by drunk driver). Rich sends C&R with made up CT through last date of employment. I refuse. This was 2 months ago. He is stating ins. co is insists on CT in order to C&R. Which is garbage since I've settled multiple cases with BHHC in the last few years and none have included a CT through last date worked. He created the problem. I was thinking (not going to but tempted) of sending cover letter to ER with DWC 1 stating "There is no evidence of CT. No doctor has indicated any CT. However the defense attorney is insistent that a CT claim be filed in order to C&R." The only other DA I have ever had do this was Eric Helphrey with Stockwell Sac one time 15 years ago. Total garbage.
AI Analysis:
Richard Montarbo is named directly in the subject line ('411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff'), and the message contains a detailed firsthand account of his professional demeanor and litigation style. The embedded reply from patricia@workerscomplegalcenter.com describes Montarbo as smart, ethical, reasonable, pleasant, and having a no-nonsense approach that generally leads to hassle-free case resolutions. It also notes his early career aggressive style versus his current mellowed demeanor, and warns against letting him turn applicant depositions into unpaid settlement conferences. This is highly valuable for evaluating how easy or difficult Montarbo is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
Ramin Saedi Date: April 15, 2021 4:18:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you all for your invaluable information. My client was a little shy of being a max earner. Any pointers on how prove that he should be a max earner? Would hiring an economist or vocational expert be a route that I should take that it was first year at this job and he had a lot more potential to earn higher wages? His previous earnings in the prior years were the same with different employers. Thank you, Ramin Los Angeles -----Original Message----- From: patricia@workerscomplegalcenter.com Sent: April 15, 2021 1:06:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff I've known Richard since he first arrived in Northern California many years ago as an aggressive, somewhat obnoxius, and know it all young attorney. Just like most of us were when we first started out. Over the years, he has mellowed out and ripened into a first class attorney. The only current caveat I can think of is don't let him turn your applicant deposition time into a non-billable settlement conference. Mad Dog has it right. He's smart, ethical, reasonable, and pleasant to work with. Good sense of humor. A gentleman and a scholar as my dad used to say. I appreciate his no bullshit approach which has, except during his excessively hard ball first year or so, resulted in generally hassle free results by way of case resolutions. Consider yourself lucky if you end up with him as counsel for defendant. -----Original Message----- From: saedilawcorporation@gmail.com Sent: April 13, 2021 8:21:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff Hello all, I was looking for any information on attorney Richard Montarbo. Defense just hired him on a large case in Southern California. I am sure a lot of you guys know him due to his publication and being a frequent speaker. Private comments of what I should expect are greatly appreciated and I promise to keep it confidential unless you wish to share it with everyone. I can be reached privately at saedilaw@aol.com. Thank you in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles Tel: 310-226-6848
AI Analysis:
This message is highly relevant for evaluating Richard Montarbo. The attorney's name appears directly in the subject line ('411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff'), and the message contains a detailed first-hand account from a colleague who has known Montarbo for many years. The response includes specific insights into his litigation style (aggressive early career, mellowed over time), professionalism (smart, ethical, reasonable), personality (good sense of humor, no-nonsense approach), and practical advice for dealing with him (don't let him turn deposition time into a non-billable settlement conference). The original message is also an explicit request for information about Montarbo from an applicant attorney preparing to face him on a case. Both the inquiry and the detailed response are directly useful for determining how easy or difficult Montarbo is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
"Stephen C. Reed" Date: April 15, 2021 1:06:00 PM Subject: Re: 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Stephen C. Reed Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I've known Richard since he first arrived in Northern California many years ago as an aggressive, somewhat obnoxius, and know it all young attorney. Just like most of us were when we first started out. Over the years, he has mellowed out and ripened into a first class attorney. The only current caveat I can think of is don't let him turn your applicant deposition time into a non-billable settlement conference. Mad Dog has it right. He's smart, ethical, reasonable, and pleasant to work with. Good sense of humor. A gentleman and a scholar as my dad used to say. I appreciate his no bullshit approach which has, except during his excessively hard ball first year or so, resulted in generally hassle free results by way of case resolutions. Consider yourself lucky if you end up with him as counsel for defendant. -----Original Message----- From: saedilawcorporation@gmail.com Sent: April 13, 2021 8:21:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff Hello all, I was looking for any information on attorney Richard Montarbo. Defense just hired him on a large case in Southern California. I am sure a lot of you guys know him due to his publication and being a frequent speaker. Private comments of what I should expect are greatly appreciated and I promise to keep it confidential unless you wish to share it with everyone. I can be reached privately at saedilaw@aol.com. Thank you in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles Tel: 310-226-6848
AI Analysis:
This message is highly relevant for evaluating Richard Montarbo. The subject line explicitly names him ('411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff'), confirming this is directly about the attorney in question. The thread contains a direct professional characterization from Brett A. Borah describing Montarbo as 'Smart. Ethical. Reasonable. Pleasant to work with.' — all of which are directly useful for assessing how easy or difficult he is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective. The original inquiry from Ramin Saedi also confirms Montarbo was hired as defense counsel on a large case, and notes his reputation as a published author and frequent speaker. Michael Georgariou's 'Agreed!' reply further corroborates the positive assessment. Multiple attorneys are vouching for his character and working style, making this highly valuable for the Synthesis Analyzer.
Michael Georgariou Date: April 14, 2021 10:28:00 AM Subject: Re: 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Michael Georgariou Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Agreed! Michael P. Georgariou II Sprenkle, Georgariou & Dilles, LLP Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 3500 Salinas, CA 93912 Phone: (831) 449-8011 Fax: (831) 449-2201 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and/or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact this office immediately by return e-mail or at (831) 449-8011, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it. On Wednesday, April 14, 2021, 08:26:00 AM PDT, Brett A. Borah (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Brett A. Borah Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Smart. Ethical. Reasonable. Pleasant to work with. Mad Dog -----Original Message----- From: Ramin Saedi (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tue, Apr 13, 2021 6:21 pm Subject: [lawnet] 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello all, I was looking for any information on attorney Richard Montarbo. Defense just hired him on a large case in Southern California. I am sure a lot of you guys know him due to his publication and being a frequent speaker. Private comments of what I should expect are greatly appreciated and I promise to keep it confidential unless you wish to share it with everyone. I can be reached privately at saedilaw@aol.com. Thank you in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles Tel: 310-226-6848
AI Analysis:
This message is highly relevant for evaluating Montarbo. The subject line explicitly names 'Richard Montarbo, Esq.' indicating the message is clearly about this attorney. The message contains both an inquiry requesting information about Montarbo (from Ramin Saedi) and a direct response from Brett A. Borah providing a professional assessment describing Montarbo as 'Smart. Ethical. Reasonable. Pleasant to work with.' These qualitative descriptors are directly useful for determining how easy or difficult Montarbo is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
"Brett A. Borah" Date: April 14, 2021 10:26:00 AM Subject: Re: 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Brett A. Borah Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Smart. Ethical. Reasonable. Pleasant to work with. Mad Dog -----Original Message----- From: Ramin Saedi (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tue, Apr 13, 2021 6:21 pm Subject: [lawnet] 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello all, I was looking for any information on attorney Richard Montarbo. Defense just hired him on a large case in Southern California. I am sure a lot of you guys know him due to his publication and being a frequent speaker. Private comments of what I should expect are greatly appreciated and I promise to keep it confidential unless you wish to share it with everyone. I can be reached privately at saedilaw@aol.com. Thank you in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles Tel: 310-226-6848
AI Analysis:
The attorney's name 'RICHARD MONTARBO' appears directly in the subject line, and the message contains multiple pieces of information highly relevant to evaluating him as a defense attorney: (1) William Herreras describes him as 'an excellent lawyer' who is 'professional, fair, and well-prepared,' noting that carriers hire him specifically to resolve difficult cases — directly informative of his negotiating style and reputation; (2) Alan Fenton notes he hosts an annual seminar attended by both defense and applicant attorneys, suggesting he is a prominent and engaged figure in the WC community; (3) Rob Bicego references his authorship of the 'Workers' Compensation Index,' indicating deep subject matter expertise. All of these details are useful for assessing how easy or difficult Montarbo is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
"RobertBicego bicegolaw.com" Date: July 09, 2024 12:49:00 PM Subject: Re: RICHARD MONTARBO Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Robert Bicego Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings He also took over the “Workers’ Compensation Index” published by LexisNexis from James Stewart some years back. That book is worth it’s weight in gold (bitcoin?). -Rob Bicego Yreka, CA From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 4:20 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re:[lawnet] RICHARD MONTARBO List: lawnet Sent By: Alan Fenton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings If you check out his web site, he also has a CompCalc and has a seminar every year that is attended by lots of WC defense and applicant people. https://www.montarbolaw.com/ I went to one and it was pretty informative and you get a defense view point, I sat next to an ortho QME and he was very forthcoming about ways to increase ratings etc. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: William Herreras (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:07 PM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re:[lawnet] RICHARD MONTARBO List: lawnet Sent By: William Herreras Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Richard is an excellent lawyer. Carriers usually hire him to resolve difficult cases. He is professional, fair, and well-prepared. You can tell him I said so. Bill Herreras
AI Analysis:
This message is highly relevant for evaluating Richard Montarbo. The attorney's name appears directly in the subject line ('RICHARD MONTARBO'), and the message contains two distinct pieces of evaluative information: (1) Alan Fenton describes Montarbo's professional resources including a CompCalc tool and an annual seminar attended by both defense and applicant attorneys, suggesting Montarbo is knowledgeable and engaged in the WC community; (2) the quoted message from William Herreras provides a direct professional assessment, describing Montarbo as 'an excellent lawyer' who is hired by carriers for difficult cases, and characterizing him as 'professional, fair, and well-prepared.' These opinions are directly useful for determining how easy or difficult Montarbo is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
"Alan Fenton" Date: July 02, 2024 6:19:00 PM Subject: Re: RICHARD MONTARBO Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Alan Fenton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings If you check out his web site, he also has a CompCalc and has a seminar every year that is attended by lots of WC defense and applicant people. https://www.montarbolaw.com/ I went to one and it was pretty informative and you get a defense view point, I sat next to an ortho QME and he was very forthcoming about ways to increase ratings etc. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: William Herreras (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:07 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re:[lawnet] RICHARD MONTARBO List: lawnet Sent By: William Herreras Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Richard is an excellent lawyer. Carriers usually hire him to resolve difficult cases. He is professional, fair, and well-prepared. You can tell him I said so. Bill Herreras
AI Analysis:
The subject line explicitly references 'RICHARD MONTARBO' (minor spelling variation 'Montrabo' in body is clearly the same person given context), and the message contains detailed firsthand experience dealing with this attorney over 30 years. It includes specific insights about his negotiation style, reasonableness, litigation approach (short depositions), and willingness to propose reasonable resolutions — all highly valuable for evaluating how easy or difficult he is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
We have dealt with RIchard Montrabo for 30ish years and on numerous cases. He knows the law and is generally reasonable as long as you are being reasonable. He is also someone that I will occasionally call to get the defense perspective on a case. Depositions are usually very short. In my experience, If he feels his client was wrong in a penalty situation, he will usually propose a reasonable resolution.
AI Analysis:
The subject line explicitly reads 'Re: RICHARD MONTARBO', which is a direct reference to the defense attorney being evaluated. Per the scoring guidelines, an attorney name appearing in the subject line warrants high confidence (0.95-1.0). The 'Re:' prefix indicates this is a reply in a thread about Montarbo, suggesting an ongoing discussion about this attorney. The message is from Keith Gilmetti of the Law Office of Keith B. Gilmetti in Bakersfield, CA, which may indicate a professional context relevant to evaluating Montarbo. However, the body of the message contains no substantive content beyond the sender's contact information, so while the subject line confirms relevance, the message itself provides limited evaluative detail.
Keith B. Gilmetti Law Office of Keith B. Gilmetti 3434 Truxtun Ave., Suite 210 Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661)324-8787
AI Analysis:
The defense attorney 'Montarbo' (Richard Montarbo, NorCal DA) is named directly in the subject line of this email thread. The message contains substantive discussion about a negotiation tactic Montarbo is employing — specifically, attempting to include an 'imaginary' cumulative trauma (CT) claim in a Compromise & Release (C&R) settlement. Multiple applicant attorneys are sharing advice on how to handle Montarbo's approach, which reveals information about his negotiation style and tactics (e.g., trying to bundle an unsupported CT claim into a C&R). One attorney advises telling Montarbo to obtain a WCAB number for the CT before proceeding, suggesting he may be attempting to settle claims informally without proper procedural steps. This is directly relevant for evaluating how difficult or easy Montarbo is to deal with from an applicant attorney's perspective.
"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: March 27, 2024 9:28:00 PM Subject: Re: NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings In further thought on this, if you allow the C/T it should be only for the injury involved. -----Original Message----- From: iodlaw@sbcglobal.net Sent: March 25, 2024 11:15:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R Tell him you can't do a C/T without a medical report. " Do you want me to file a C/T and set Qme?" -----Original Message----- From: aksesq@gmail.com Sent: March 25, 2024 4:36:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R If it's only a CT to the same body part(s) as the specific I would probably allow it after a discussion with my client. The defendant wants finality. On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 2:11 PM Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Hollie Rutkowski <hollie@tclc.org> > Reply To Sender > <hollie@tclc.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20NorCal%20DA%20Richard%20Montarbo%20-%20imaginary%20CT%20with%20C%26R> > Reply To List > <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20NorCal%20DA%20Richard%20Montarbo%20-%20imaginary%20CT%20with%20C%26R> > Search <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> > Settings > <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> > > Tell Montarbo that you want him to get a WCAB number for the CT, so that > it can be settled with C&R. Then when you get the WCAB number, you can > either play nice and settle both cases in C&R, or you can settle the > specific injury and litigate the CT. > > Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. > > > > The Compensation Law Center > <https://the-compensation-law-center.business.site/> > > Sacramento, CA 95834 > > > > T:916.974.0424 > > F:916.974.0428 > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" < > listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> > *To:* "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> > *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2024 2:02:55 PM > *Subject:* [lawnet] NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Matthew Keller <matt@kellerlawchico.com> > Reply To Sender > <matt@kellerlawchico.com?subject=Re%3A%20NorCal%20DA%20Richard%20Montarbo%20-%20imaginary%20CT%20with%20C%26R> > Reply To List > <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20NorCal%20DA%20Richard%20Montarbo%20-%20imaginary%20CT%20with%20C%26R> > Search <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> > Settings > <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> > > Going back to prior posts I see a post from Ms. Gushi (NorCal AA now > retired) back in 2014 stating Richard Montarbo was insisting on CT through > last date of employment with C&R. He is still doing it. > Rich represents BHHC. We negotiated C&R (specific injury, my client hit by > drunk driver). Rich sends C&R with made up CT through last date of > employment. I refuse. This was 2 months ago. He is stating ins. co is > insists on CT in order to C&R. Which is garbage since I've settled multiple > cases with BHHC in the last few years and none have included a CT through > last date worked. He created the problem. > I was thinking (not going to but tempted) of sending cover letter to ER > with DWC 1 stating "There is no evidence of CT. No doctor has indicated any > CT. However the defense attorney is insistent that a CT claim be filed in > order to C&R." > The only other DA I have ever had do this was Eric Helphrey with Stockwell > Sac one time 15 years ago. Total garbage. > > > > -- Andrew K. Shaffer BORAH & SHAFFER 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd., #230 Cupertino, CA 95014 408-996-8650
AI Analysis:
The defense attorney 'Montarbo' (Richard Montarbo, NorCal DA) is explicitly named in the subject line of this email thread. The message discusses a specific negotiation tactic being used by Montarbo involving an 'imaginary' cumulative trauma (CT) claim paired with a Compromise & Release (C&R) settlement. Colleagues are advising the applicant attorney on how to handle Montarbo's approach, including strategic responses such as demanding a WCAB number for the CT or requiring a medical report before agreeing to a C/T. This is directly relevant for evaluating Montarbo's negotiation style and tactics from an applicant attorney's perspective, as it reveals he may use procedurally questionable or aggressive settlement strategies.
"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: March 25, 2024 11:15:00 PM Subject: Re: NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Tell him you can't do a C/T without a medical report. " Do you want me to file a C/T and set Qme?" -----Original Message----- From: aksesq@gmail.com Sent: March 25, 2024 4:36:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R If it's only a CT to the same body part(s) as the specific I would probably allow it after a discussion with my client. The defendant wants finality. On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 2:11 PM Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Hollie Rutkowski <hollie@tclc.org> > Reply To Sender > <hollie@tclc.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20NorCal%20DA%20Richard%20Montarbo%20-%20imaginary%20CT%20with%20C%26R> > Reply To List > <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20NorCal%20DA%20Richard%20Montarbo%20-%20imaginary%20CT%20with%20C%26R> > Search <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> > Settings > <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> > > Tell Montarbo that you want him to get a WCAB number for the CT, so that > it can be settled with C&R. Then when you get the WCAB number, you can > either play nice and settle both cases in C&R, or you can settle the > specific injury and litigate the CT. > > Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. > > > > The Compensation Law Center > <https://the-compensation-law-center.business.site/> > > Sacramento, CA 95834 > > > > T:916.974.0424 > > F:916.974.0428 > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" < > listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> > *To:* "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> > *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2024 2:02:55 PM > *Subject:* [lawnet] NorCal DA Richard Montarbo - imaginary CT with C&R > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Matthew Keller <matt@kellerlawchico.com> > Reply To Sender > <matt@kellerlawchico.com?subject=Re%3A%20NorCal%20DA%20Richard%20Montarbo%20-%20imaginary%20CT%20with%20C%26R> > Reply To List > <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20NorCal%20DA%20Richard%20Montarbo%20-%20imaginary%20CT%20with%20C%26R> > Search <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> > Settings > <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> > > Going back to prior posts I see a post from Ms. Gushi (NorCal AA now > retired) back in 2014 stating Richard Montarbo was insisting on CT through > last date of employment with C&R. He is still doing it. > Rich represents BHHC. We negotiated C&R (specific injury, my client hit by > drunk driver). Rich sends C&R with made up CT through last date of > employment. I refuse. This was 2 months ago. He is stating ins. co is > insists on CT in order to C&R. Which is garbage since I've settled multiple > cases with BHHC in the last few years and none have included a CT through > last date worked. He created the problem. > I was thinking (not going to but tempted) of sending cover letter to ER > with DWC 1 stating "There is no evidence of CT. No doctor has indicated any > CT. However the defense attorney is insistent that a CT claim be filed in > order to C&R." > The only other DA I have ever had do this was Eric Helphrey with Stockwell > Sac one time 15 years ago. Total garbage. > > > > -- Andrew K. Shaffer BORAH & SHAFFER 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd., #230 Cupertino, CA 95014 408-996-8650
AI Analysis:
The subject line explicitly names 'Richard Montarbo' and references a specific negotiation scenario ('imaginary CT with C&R'), indicating this message is directly about dealing with this defense attorney. The reply from Andrew Shaffer discusses a negotiation strategy/position regarding a compromise and release, which provides insight into how applicant attorneys approach dealings with Montarbo. The subject line mention alone warrants high confidence, and the content adds context about negotiation dynamics involving this attorney.
If it's only a CT to the same body part(s) as the specific I would probably allow it after a discussion with my client. The defendant wants finality.
AI Analysis:
The subject line explicitly names 'Richard Montarbo, Esq.' and is located in 'Red Bluff', making this clearly about the defense attorney being evaluated. The message is a reply to a request for information ('411 on') about Montarbo posted to a legal listserver (lawnet/CAAA), indicating this thread contains peer attorney inquiries and likely responses about experiences dealing with this specific attorney. The subject line match alone warrants high confidence, and the listserver context (California Association of Attorneys) suggests the content will be professionally relevant to evaluating Montarbo's dealings with opposing counsel.
On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Brett A. Borah (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:
AI Analysis:
Richard Montarbo is explicitly named in the subject line ('411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff'), and the message is a direct inquiry from applicant attorney Ramin Saedi seeking information about what to expect when dealing with Montarbo as opposing defense counsel on a large Southern California case. This is precisely the type of inquiry message that signals Montarbo is being evaluated as a defense attorney, and any responses to this inquiry would contain firsthand accounts of dealing with him. The message itself establishes that Montarbo is a defense attorney with a notable publication and speaking history, and that he has been hired on significant litigation matters.
Ramin Saedi Date: April 13, 2021 8:21:00 PM Subject: 411 on Richard Montarbo, Esq. in Red Bluff Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello all, I was looking for any information on attorney Richard Montarbo. Defense just hired him on a large case in Southern California. I am sure a lot of you guys know him due to his publication and being a frequent speaker. Private comments of what I should expect are greatly appreciated and I promise to keep it confidential unless you wish to share it with everyone. I can be reached privately at saedilaw@aol.com. Thank you in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles Tel: 310-226-6848
AI Analysis:
The message directly identifies 'Richard Montarbo' as the WC defense attorney being asked about in the subject line — a NorCal/Sacramento attorney who used to give seminars and had a rating app. The subject line inquiry is about this attorney, and the reply confirms his identity and that he is still active. While the message contains minimal detail about his style or dealings, it is clearly about this specific attorney and confirms his continued presence in the field, making it relevant for evaluation. Confidence is slightly below the highest tier because the body provides very little substantive information beyond confirming his identity.
Richard Montarbo. He's still around.
AI Analysis:
The message mentions Richard Montarbo by name in the context of a thread asking about a WC attorney in NorCal/Sacramento who gave seminars and had a rating app. Heather Siles identifies him as the attorney being sought and notes 'He's still around.' While the message contains limited direct information about his professional style or dealings, it does confirm his identity, his history of giving seminars, and his development of a rating/calculator app (compcalc), which was later sold to Matrix copy service. This provides some background context about Montarbo as a practitioner, though it does not include firsthand accounts of negotiating or dealing with him. The subject line references him indirectly (asking about a WC attorney matching his description) rather than naming him explicitly, which slightly reduces confidence.
"Esequiel Solorio" Date: January 20, 2025 9:41:00 AM Subject: Re: WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Esequiel Solorio Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings He sold it to Matrix copy service and there is a working copy on the apple store but the android version does not exist. Zeke Modesto -----Original Message----- From: afenton@alanfentonlaw.com Sent: January 19, 2025 11:48:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? His compcalc app does seem to be active anymore. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Heather Siles (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 11:25 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? List: lawnet Sent By: Heather Siles<mailto:hlsiles@yahoo.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:hlsiles@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20WC%20attorney%20in%20NORCAL%2FSACTO%20that%20used%20to%20give%20seminars%20and%20had%20a%20rating%20app%3F> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20WC%20attorney%20in%20NORCAL%2FSACTO%20that%20used%20to%20give%20seminars%20and%20had%20a%20rating%20app%3F> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> Richard Montarbo. He's still around. Heather L. Siles* Law Offices of Siles & Foster, P.C. 2064 Talbert Drive, Ste 100, Chico, CA 95928 P: 530-898-9600 *Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist, CA State Bar Board of Legal Specialization On Friday, January 17, 2025 at 10:43:25 AM PST, Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org>> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Dane Gilliam<mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com?subject=Re%3A%20WC%20attorney%20in%20NORCAL%2FSACTO%20that%20used%20to%20give%20seminars%20and%20had%20a%20rating%20app%3F> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20WC%20attorney%20in%20NORCAL%2FSACTO%20that%20used%20to%20give%20seminars%20and%20had%20a%20rating%20app%3F> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> I think that is Rich Montarbo. [cid:suzgmeyIrrrKm3Cn1lNd]<http://www.bentleymore.com/> DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com<mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com> 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org>> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. I think that is Rich Montarbo. [cid:suzgmeyIrrrKm3Cn1lNd]<http://www.bentleymore.com/> DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com<mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com> 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org>> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You.
AI Analysis:
The message identifies Richard Montarbo as a WC attorney in NorCal/Sacramento who gave seminars and had a rating/calculator app (compcalc). Multiple attorneys recognize him by name, confirming he is still active. However, the message contains no substantive information about his negotiation style, litigation approach, responsiveness, or experiences dealing with him from an applicant attorney's perspective. The content is limited to identifying who he is and noting his app may no longer be active. Useful for confirming identity and practice area, but limited evaluative value.
"Alan Fenton" Date: January 19, 2025 11:48:00 AM Subject: Re: WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Alan Fenton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings His compcalc app does seem to be active anymore. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Heather Siles (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 11:25 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? List: lawnet Sent By: Heather Siles Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Richard Montarbo. He's still around. Heather L. Siles* Law Offices of Siles & Foster, P.C. 2064 Talbert Drive, Ste 100, Chico, CA 95928 P: 530-898-9600 *Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist, CA State Bar Board of Legal Specialization On Friday, January 17, 2025 at 10:43:25 AM PST, Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Dane Gilliam Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think that is Rich Montarbo. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. I think that is Rich Montarbo. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You.
AI Analysis:
The message identifies 'Rich Montarbo' as the WC attorney in NorCal/Sacramento who used to give seminars and had a rating app, directly answering a query about this attorney. While the message itself contains minimal substantive information about Montarbo's professional style or dealings, it does confirm his identity, geographic area (NorCal/Sacramento), and two notable professional characteristics (gave seminars, had a rating app). This is useful contextual information for evaluation, though it lacks direct experience-based opinions about dealing with him.
"Alan Fenton" Date: January 17, 2025 3:29:00 PM Subject: Re: WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Thanks af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:43 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re:[lawnet] WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? List: lawnet Sent By: Dane Gilliam Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think that is Rich Montarbo. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You.
AI Analysis:
The message mentions 'Mr. Montarbo' by name in a context that provides some evaluative information: applicant attorney Kimberley Pryor describes him as 'old school' and cites him as an example of a defense attorney who spoke at CAAA and who she believes could teach claims adjusters about identifying over-billing attorneys. This suggests she views Montarbo positively as a professional and ethical defense attorney, distinguishing him from defense attorneys she characterizes as abusive billers. However, the mention is brief and incidental to the main topic of the thread (overbilling by defense attorneys), and there is no direct description of negotiating or litigating against him. The reference provides limited but genuine characterization of Montarbo's reputation among applicant attorneys.
cognitorsj@aol.com Date: June 30, 2020 4:53:00 PM Subject: Re: I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Glad, Ms. Pryor and Ms. Rutkowski that you are both on our side. Mike Richter Santa Clara In a message dated 6/30/2020 11:46:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, listsender@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I consider people who have cushy clients, peace officers etc, to be a completely different section of workers compensation. They have no idea what we do, the fighting we have to do just to get the basics for our clients, including AOE/COE, treatment etc. I'm hit every other day with motions to quash subpoenas for personnel files and claim files when being served nothing for 90 days to 6 months. Nonsense like that. Hollie you and I battle similarly and I'm not making any friends, either . Old school defense attorneys like Mr. Montarbo who spoke at CAAA on Sunday should give classes for claims adjusters and insurance companies on what to look for with an over billing attorney. The entire system suffers because of them, worst of all, the injured workers suffer, needlessly... This system is broken. Dealing with some defense attorneys is like dealing with sport hunters. I'm a vegetarian animal rights activist. Sport hunters and I will neve ever see eye to eye.. And the analogy is correct, some defense attorneys think this is a sport, for which they get to bill and bill and bill. It's not a sport. Human lives are at stake. Many seem to forget that. Kimberley J Pryor, Esq Law offices of Kimberley J Pryor Warrior for the Worker Mobile: 831-206-9745 Office: 818-901-9999 From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:42:21 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Ron, the DAs (Justin Drake, who used to work for LFLM and now works for Coleman Chavez and Colleen Wahl, who used to work for LFLM and is now with CalTrans) used this case for the sole purpose of billing hours for LFLM - as you said. Amtrust (the sleaziest of TPAs) happily paid. I did three Trials on TD, doctor-shopping and PD. The only thing I didn't have to take to Trial was Injury AOE/COE. Two of those Trials were solely for the purpose of billing because the DA did not even have a defense. As it was Amtrust I was litigating, practically everything Amtrust did was sanctionable. I have their Claims Notes to prove it. Now, I deserve to get paid and lots. If I can teach Amtrust some lessons, it is that paying a DA for 137.2 hours means that Amtrust is going to end up paying me many hours as well AND that I really love to cross examine CEs for about six hours as I walk them through all of their Pet DA's bad faith tactics AND that the CE is ultimately responsible for hiring a DA who goes on a billing marathon while pounding sunshine up her ass. The DAs billable hours are relevant, first to get me paid, second to educate each CE, one by one, that vicious unnecessary litigation is costly. I am wildly unpopular with both WCJs and DAs because I fight back. I haven't got the cushy clients - Police/Sheriff/CO - whose claims merely have to be adjusted, or the responsible Defendants - the State/County/City - who want to resolve claims without a pitched battle. App's Attys who have the cushy clients and responsible Defendants don't know what my cases are like. M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver)" <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:53:14 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I completely understand why it's relevant. They make our lives h***, delay our clients benefits, and then they get to bill their client more for it. They never get sanctioned for bad faith tactics and we are papered to death with their nonsense and the courts are overburdened with their BS. And "they" the powers that be, wonder why we can't get along. This illustrates that this is no longer a benefits delivery system. It is clearly a delay deny and reduce system. It's good to have evidence that we're not crazy when we say this. Thanks Hollie Kimberley J Pryor, Esq Law offices of Kimberley J Pryor Warrior for the Worker Mobile: 831-206-9745 Office: 818-901-9999 From: Ronald Mahurin (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 9:09:30 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Ronald Mahurin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I'm lost as to why this is relevant to you aside from telling CAAA that the defense attorney is going to make partner if he keeps defending your cases. Care to comment? Ron Mahurin Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
AI Analysis:
The message confirms that 'Richard Montarbo' (also referred to as 'Rich Montarbo') is the WC attorney being asked about in NorCal/Sacramento who used to give seminars and had a rating app, and that he is 'still around.' While this identifies and confirms the attorney's existence and general practice area, it contains minimal substantive information about his style, tactics, or how he is to deal with. The message is relevant in that it is clearly about this attorney, but offers little evaluative content beyond confirming his identity and continued practice.
"Alan Fenton" Date: January 17, 2025 3:23:00 PM Subject: Re: WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Alan Fenton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings That’s it thanks AF Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Heather Siles (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 11:25 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? List: lawnet Sent By: Heather Siles Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Richard Montarbo. He's still around. Heather L. Siles* Law Offices of Siles & Foster, P.C. 2064 Talbert Drive, Ste 100, Chico, CA 95928 P: 530-898-9600 *Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist, CA State Bar Board of Legal Specialization On Friday, January 17, 2025 at 10:43:25 AM PST, Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Dane Gilliam Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think that is Rich Montarbo. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. I think that is Rich Montarbo. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You.
AI Analysis:
The message identifies 'Rich Montarbo' as the WC attorney in NorCal/Sacramento who used to give seminars and had a rating app, which provides some contextual information about the attorney (geographic region, professional activities). However, the message contains very little substantive information about Montarbo's dealings, negotiation style, or professional conduct that would help evaluate how easy or difficult they are to work with. The name does not appear in the subject line, and the identification is brief with no evaluative content. The original inquiry (asking about a WC attorney who gave seminars and had a rating app) suggests Montarbo had some professional prominence, but this is inferred rather than directly stated. Marked relevant at moderate confidence because it confirms identity and provides minimal professional context, but lacks the experiential detail needed for meaningful evaluation.
"Dane P. Gilliam" Date: January 17, 2025 12:43:00 PM Subject: Re: WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Reply to list Reply to sender Print I think that is Rich Montarbo. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You.
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention 'Montarbo' anywhere in the subject line, body, or headers. The thread is a general discussion among applicant attorneys about procedural tactics defense attorneys use to reset evaluations and get applicants to P&S sooner, involving AME/QME objection requirements. The participants are Philip Cohen, Lawrence R. Whiting, Hollie Rutkowski, and Dane Gilliam. There is no reference to Montarbo by name, firm, or any other identifier. The message contains no information useful for evaluating Montarbo specifically.
pmcworkcomp@aol.com Date: February 10, 2021 2:51:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Regardless, there can be bases for re-exam without new 4061/62 objections such as new medical records obtained and the AME or QME states it is necessary to re-exam in lite of the records or sub-rosas, or a petition for new and further. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 www.sandiego-injurylawyer.com -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence R. Whiting (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wed, Feb 10, 2021 10:53 am Subject: Re:[lawnet] Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I believe there should be a difference in the "AME dance" and the present requirement to for an objection requirement for a PQME. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: February 10, 2021 11:36:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? I don't know if it matters, but this case was on pre-1/1/05 date of injury. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fthe-compensation-law-center.business.site%2f&c=E,1,9ZPxSJPAn0bKBfKmW_iZj4Mx6MMSBznJqbQwmq-mayXmmVkkDArQdkL530Y-8msgZsgQ0aiAuMazuvvwNqowSiGzbDIW9B48f401bzeA-Dhs4reS1Xg32w,,&typo=1 ' The Compensation Law Center ] Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:22:16 AM Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com ' Dane Gilliam ] [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5BEXTERNAL%5DRe%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5BEXTERNAL%5DRe%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.caaa.org%2findex.cfm%3fpg%3dsearch&c=E,1,DHcefHG6agUm0lCGK0XZAK84k2N7JPo2XdTqPckIoExkCMqrewwQ5XFVYgOdgSDb3THQe9vsBDg8L7Ygf3r6beyrVD0pTFl5IjlKofArZCg,&typo=1 ' Search ] [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.caaa.org%2findex.cfm%3fpg%3dlistviewer%26lsAction%3dlistSettings&c=E,1,P74eRqI_C7XshSUqjridIahGA-J3t-cUZV6F46onJFbh6TUjq_DW3zw_vTokwU_xzbsGVJPWwsNgxs5O6Oi9wHAInjVoIU7q-n2cFHUPz57rrJ_aqtDqGXR9&typo=1 ' Settings ] There is a brief discussion on this issue in the Stewart/Montarbo index: It says there is no need for the parties to repeat "AME Dance" of 4061/4062. Batavia, Inc. (Alcantar) 62 CCC 1134. [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bentleymore.com%2f&c=E,1,7YPdX4iYPUZCjgtfFvNEG0n0aoiW9CrvUZJpz0XeSHp2IGMKMuzh1p8FQpV72JePETLjoOauHmu6V1iuebvpodt1ORUV5mhACt3G4P-nvJA,&typo=1 ] DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com ' dgilliam@bentleymore.com ] 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:05 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:hollie@tclc.org ' Hollie Rutkowski ] [ mailto:hollie@tclc.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FNmL9TYVSbIXuKBZsmf9PtugGSDIuQ34whel3fKLiOBNKfs94T7xWn0hsToW8-1Jp%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh0%2FMkpcx0C3o8cNi1Y7h85SdNhuYSbmTX7HJxolwOA9rX0&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914728572%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=d69x1IbYTRGu812HXncXcWpNg8z%2FVmyreuWRfdc1Cbw%3D&reserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FNmL9TYVSbIXuKBZsmf9PtugGSDIuQ34whel3fKLiOBN_nFD-WtNIt1fkXbBlrxA3go49Ie23FzL5UzbYQluDFkbxCSAvkSXclZOcEHEFl9E%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh1%2FxbWnujJsvh64nzYAaPLAi9sclm0f5riQMo1RQ4AYFUo&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914728572%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=xl1YzBYFdwXuFYlONXBox0TKNjxxmI6wXeUOZAz%2BnSU%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] I petitioned for sanctions against a DA who cancelled a Psychiatric AME re-exam when the AME, in response to my letter requesting a Supplemental Report, responded that he would need a Psychiatric AME re-exam. No LC 4061/4062 required. The facts were that,. while IW was not represented, the PTP, who was a Ph.D., NOT an M.D., request a Psychiatric evaluation to determine what psyche medications the IW should receive (obviously, the Ph.D. could not prescribe medications). CE ignored this RFA. I became IW's atty. DA and I agreed to Psychiatric AME,\who originally agreed with the PTP P&S/MMI date becasue DA withheld the RFA for Psychiatric evaluation, stating that he was not required to tell me what was in his Medical Index to the AME - that sorry SOB was sooooo ignorant of WC rules and Regs that he thought App's Atty was not entitled ro know what medical records he was sending to AME. [Anyone want to know who this ignorant DA is? Sac MulFil Christopher Philippides. He also said that MulFil had a new rule, DAs were only allowed to correspond by phone and USPS, MulFil DAs would not longer accept emails or faxes. That instruction was by email from his secretary. Of course, this was an out-and-out lie.] I set re-exam with Psychiatric AME, as Psychiatric AME requested. Christopher Philippides canceled re-exam, stating I had not made LC 4062 objection. (My Petition for Sanctions is quite lengthy. I'll be calling the Claims Manager as my witness.) So, there is an exception to LC 4061/62 objection - when AME requests re-exam in a Supplemental Report. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9kt6vZauTnyjt1EvNOSRJKuXRhcBOsNDddRnuBQSH0ewXDuGtlGRNhZG94v3A1Rga0SacL9IjeY5a5XfinXYiEgDejwwDhxRvT7feCPsFUNYBxFGgGl1pfbU4Uun_hJSgEuvpSMTyU5FyNXEa3sQaSx66W3mHzXtj6tevFr-ElkVlAULdDnRdv8L8M2V7cuaIYJ-AIAq8zdoDd3DArv38xgbbnE0FCqoGOOjW846Rx3PLngftfrJjyffpfeqXDyh2CVL7BVqIP68Rc9781yeO1A%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh2%2FlsqAHs7k06c9tvkalO-2gIYjrA3SGM9y5yczjkklmu8&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914738565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=DrPbdjDt8EoFoSmzoGijB3eP4KQohLjGrdQahS61D48%3D&reserved=0 ' The Compensation Law Center ] Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver)" < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ' listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > To: "Statewide List Service" < [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ' lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ] > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:09:16 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:pmcworkcomp@aol.com ' Philip Cohen ] [ mailto:pmcworkcomp@aol.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd34BWFStUhwEsCpF0pEZhI7FCu7_hNkT5bZyp5i2gUtx0RIpEd2yFEuUs4eKJd5xYeQgYE96QjbJhyhvfgbjjM9fDtRnL64_z7xLF92dB1fMn4jVlE2asUlS3271EGpy8VNcZ7HyRz3-ZiFj8aHS1eyZ4yNTlJdVSYn_2VANGQeA5zeXIudKIoH7rgDsegTe-MD9johcTsKU7jx03Doxle1PH-nva1nsmcFeI4sCiaY9pOCIWczlz2SbaZfmoM28sdajBQSu-CCdmUfKVk795GGKzdzXcB_noqzBtjsBh9EP7BHovT4NtUaRh7VCLaNKxV3hTKbEoqHbK-nLJYY6Z843ssp1nAow8K9Y3SXrBgTd3JIvpymxJ9GiOEXI0DaGujO_oAOSrCyxm4wkklOgWxG%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh3%2FuTRMd_2e8-VP-2NZ_zu1GNu6T6Xlp104ESNhZYDiMCQ&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914738565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=DDp6jrY%2FP0wq9VRbwRgea5MKXkrfnO2mhFoYPUBBnsU%3D&r eserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd34BWFStUhwEsCpF0pEZhI7FCu7_hNkT5bZyp5i2gUtx0RIpEd2yFEuUs4eKJd5xYdJhrWrGdeYN-Z_wqFNj-CbvMD-wu_VH13YcLgNJOhQrUSpnXjKimuSJ7i2wcv5vRNuJDRHeRfG0rzaRWNauhjDvazBQNMha9iJ4SNR309boQrt3Mumwo9JvQAXv8fZyx6RZZptwk25vGOA8Kqdzw-4OUHnVhTemYFuTfFm0pcdTyAHlQbHoi79dFm7ncVemo1nfX8tviGXg9WgUxtmDfbC95UNU_Ka3GQsin-BND8US2Se0tTpMlcM0pM2_sHyF861_M1IbinkVIL04rGt_iiD8Y0KoYYL5XbvmS37xEdDiY3JBXo__Hiku1BAdSqvfTXVCYQLcprd-bA86az7CgYZHXQztIijC_vYiX59gkDDnZNRG8JR0d1LdYHOI-MsPhM%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh4%2FMUjandSm9wla5Frod5DlN-RDG81Wx1QLdg51K-mutAw&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914748563%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=s8eKojq DcJIEJstmT2heI55VKL3%2FMaWR0O1r%2BhcCHEY%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] Assumes original was legal per 4061/62. There is no provision for a reevaluation without a new objection. No new issue to resolve. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,_gKiZoTSZDKUUJmV-KwHbz8Wchre3hyLutZabJgBFHiaRV7ZUthpSXG675dWzOPfVwtrypp27_4j1SBsgsc9vzKyAnkRCq7k-8ZnMqcPeKgxop8piGBVyQ,,&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,D9lL9cZSs8QcP13QIteZJpxotXre2-Jv6Hj_Z4ZHbQHI7tP5WpEzLDZQqGfdTsKKDBCwkf_KSuM3W48-Q1TEn0Genza-AU5OktZK2y6IrUNw_RI3tO2haw,,&typo=1 ] -----Original Message----- From: Esequiel Solorio (lawnet listserver) < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ' listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > To: Statewide List Service < [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ' lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ] > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 5:22 pm Subject: Re:[lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:wcsolorio@yahoo.com ' Esequiel Solorio ] [ mailto:wcsolorio@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd00PHNmmdHABCsItY54qKzgw2131Jr2NthXTZAPgo724dcFVWA5P-3z6ugVu6_0ABS23lG2smo2DsEJUjP37L20jOvIiCHbfD9eWb_BTYornrEVkVI1NenvugNecC9fZOx_13JaZnUxZrw5FIEdw-F5IkeG0v7vjFYR-419yMGLlkab4nMgO8mv9Py9K9MA7qvwFDvv8sCa1_z4bAEuZfimClZb9xfQLZV6J6n129861wOUr3wV0Cg86nOK8sJwOmytEUhCZGgizeiDXsDDK_uP9MNmJKu1_cplmqdBSE_S5S2-eYTWps7W03etqHSWdLUVfjW-2QhrWtH5eiLSfGEnGZGYHs_Q-lYWnEvTBKO_m1eu0oTN_CS0m6cshTI1wkjs9FgqIm6sUzHxRoDhtSj9bu0ajWP644DXoaBzFR-Qd1Zi8fFo8ULyfubIA8BwSW-bpRDQAyOojGYRZQVQ-1ISZ-lnO7mCJ_ySYmgCEZ968YE8f-nhV_PP1VvGU1eHiQ83R-VBwgA3rZp6Qdt9YzEvGmXuZVQ4AMM6wuygdix_oacECSSlqJ3kzE1wOVPcAjwkBTyKgPPRmDTFzhzDSHnTlwdCf57VMptEK98bDfjA3JBzTRGUCY5BfT-3R0DQBiT8nOwgaIrXO4MGfqN9GroQrlQeJvyW2474uUHAwmCeMNo8VS2pVb8DEOoUc9qO2f8z2mYkqYKbO5adfF4rsC34BEzgf7dbx4kSEYglin1W3Z5xLuEauuasbLL9eNc7avHcfafhlD4RLzre4K 8YWlEj0mHP9Ab3-JMNJ-04dNoayJplmWhgAFwzR78qaeK4WShnFWX0WU9reDJyxUSs0UMx9lBvnOGBlsBo9hLPT8vUWfhskBwq93dJlshe-FBRS_zBkPA3o0SSUp0L15-X1dTKap_GyX-tqcROB87TIeo3AyslvRssbmF25L6QctiOKHU%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh5%2Fac2jzl1wo7nMSA9cVBOrRWoTuUikRV2uuSzNubAGuRo&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914758558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=aCbTOBlaygKIydm1ACtcwzsXU35kuHnwr0BGSaSfJgc%3D&reserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd00PHNmmdHABCsItY54qKzgw2131Jr2NthXTZAPgo724dcFVWA5P-3z6ugVu6_0ABS23lG2smo2DsEJUjP37L20jOvIiCHbfD9eWb_BTYornrEVkVI1NenvugNecC9fZOx_13JaZnUxZrw5FIEdw-F5IkeG0v7vjFYR-419yMGLlkab4nMgO8mv9Py9K9MA7qvwFDvv8sCa1_z4bAEuZfimClZb9xfQLZV6J6n1298616FqeOlayf8iNEkMB1hTyF7EQF54uSlufFdRhU0qP3vGGrS36-v0c3yzD8cl5OlRGBxLSqAB9Wifc6cze3s9sg5888vDP8SxybUMzeWqOCtR1d612XhCHUZh5jwSoP4pEqlCCBY3mKF0psCHrv1xPMDqWmgX-Ni9fZ9Q8gcRfH7b1SzpB_DK7F9G9EYkhtRdSd-mY7h_gh0CrRCBtjOKdDsqdezW7J8oew65XKNNivEAbs1j67-k5liF0DVV3v7N6FRh5b_jkY1w3iQwST02Idh0KWWlMhCuLo7adzsHHsJ2bLL9kHvHGBUdLgVXpEle778aaMLHvDjnSA71GP9gTbOafLPkzskIduzDrqOQC2_mnkhVqrzgeMpk440tfxuK8183_GKZQ7NHbuCzsQnXImndlJU9oZYcgwjLcl53cuoY9ExVqKSUJzNeTZubhmP6xcmr5R2kXnkS1tUcIO6mcfXSe8CDdAIrKtt632Ny8QhEHhPOffYM70jBJRL-jsCnyMlkDHGyyDXJA8ZcaKm8a3HEyti96gVD4XtMkR T_dI400mrw-_yukCPh1sIuPcAN00naVH5pnM54OPeEVI1-VHKjUnpJSQJUtkhBgx1VuT34h5r-N6o7uGb-eIqEktFy3GMB_ggBjaJGgBc1BT6NBdAM4jlfUAVFTzdStxYFaKxmMFlTdQGasZmUh0u7NNBVBU_pNT36NYOITaDFXTldoiWH5jVh-qzZUeGP2YhDGKuqaFf3WY0vX5cm5FGVE900-N24c3RuBWEpjZcClEbeDpDaaHEq4WUXWRIBmuQdYrNMxmnk-AKfduBs9WKMGDqfLA%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh6%2F4snFgcex3m0UgXXzkFD4m4dhWqhSfDXmCcKhNuqgCB0&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914758558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=CAfCbh0X0OQF4NSN33e3nr1Lq9XjECe8pduBZ0LlJYw%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] Ok Mr. Cohen you got me, i have questions. Are you assuming the original panel was not requested pursuant to a 4061/4062 objection? Why would you need a second such objection for a re-eval as such objection is only needed to start, not restart the panel process. Zeke Modesto -----Original Message----- From: [ mailto:ibrahim@mashneylaw.com ' ibrahim@mashneylaw.com ] Sent: February 09, 2021 5:31:00 PM To: [ mailto:lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com ' lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com ] Subject: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? I had the same issue very recently. I followed Mr. Cohen's advice. I canceled the re-eval and wrote a letter to the DA explaining the lack of renewed 4061/4062 objection and what applicant needs before getting to P&S per the medical reporting. DA took no further action and agreed that applicant needs treatment. Ibrahim Ellahib, Esq. Mashney Law Offices, APC. 335 N Brookhurst St ' Anaheim, CA 92801 T 714.535.5090 ' F 714.535.7263 [ mailto:Ibrahim@MashneyLaw.com ' Ibrahim@MashneyLaw.com ] ' [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.MashneyLaw.com&c=E,1,4g4b6iaUQSXNeDxEo9LzEs-jvMGBCDgXbG0dzTUDxDHOmc7i7RJgMge9pzlBeRv22-smduxer_C2HYiVeEFgoiR-dvg3INls_uvTuO2S&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.MashneyLaw.com&c=E,1,4g4b6iaUQSXNeDxEo9LzEs-jvMGBCDgXbG0dzTUDxDHOmc7i7RJgMge9pzlBeRv22-smduxer_C2HYiVeEFgoiR-dvg3INls_uvTuO2S&typo=1 ] From: Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver) Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:07 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings By law if testing is needed to rule out, not P and S. I have defense constantly trying to set up AME and QME re-evals just to get a P and S report. Most cases, there is no 4061/62 objection, so no right to the reeval and I don't have client go and judges have always agreed with my position. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,3rKLUdD4DF7bDbnR2QGDo5U8KiagjxZQ_JsBZhPOBD4TQHDaPIbsNi0v8D3UlaJ1KPmOj2SFpFEujGfXalJCoy7pM-ZAFLTj7h4gqEb0ctiLlsuFQeKc0eM,&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,3rKLUdD4DF7bDbnR2QGDo5U8KiagjxZQ_JsBZhPOBD4TQHDaPIbsNi0v8D3UlaJ1KPmOj2SFpFEujGfXalJCoy7pM-ZAFLTj7h4gqEb0ctiLlsuFQeKc0eM,&typo=1 ] -----Original Message----- From: Ramin Saedi (lawnet listserver) > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 2:59 pm Subject: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dear mates, How do you stop the defendant from keep setting up QME reevaluations in hopes of getting the applicant P and S sooner when the recommended diagnostic or treatments by the QME has not been done or approved? It has become extremely annoying especially with the ADR cases. Thanks in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
This message contains no mention of 'Montarbo' anywhere in the subject line, body, headers, or signatures. The message is entirely about AmTrust North America billing practices, defense attorney fee affidavits, and litigation strategy tips regarding claims managers. The individuals mentioned (Hollie Rutkowski, Alan Fenton, Livia Ferrari, Michelle Green, Lori Centers, Sheri Lawrence) have no connection to Montarbo. This message is not relevant for evaluating Montarbo.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: June 30, 2020 5:51:00 PM Subject: Re: I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings For Future Reference - Next time you want to litigate Amtust abuse, File Petition for Sanctions, set for Trial, Do a Notice to Appear for the Claims Manager to Appear at Trial. Claims Manager can't plead ignorance of Statutes and Regs and policy and procedure like CE can: MR. LIVIA FERRARI 01 342 Manager AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC. P.O. BOX 4026 CONCORD ,CA 94524 Phone: (925) 288-6601 Fax: (216) 643-5500 MS. MICHELLE GREEN 02 342 Manager AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC. 16875 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE #200 SAN DIEGO ,CA 92127 Phone: (858) 618-3501 Fax: (216) 643-5500 MS. LORI CENTERS 03 342 Manager AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC. 17771 COWAN #150 IRVINE ,CA 92614 Phone: (925) 271-7454 Fax: (216) 643-5500 MS. SHERI LAWRENCE SHERI 04 342 Manager AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC. 874 S VILLAGE OAKS DRIVE COVINA ,CA 91724 Phone: (626) 646-2090 Fax: (216) 643-5500 Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver)" <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:26:12 PM Subject: RE: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Alan Fenton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings AmTrust either hires adjusters who don’t care, don’t know or are intentionally making each claim the most litigated claim in the history of the WC “system” Take your pick. At least in the end, you will get a better than average fee because of the routine failures that drive you to the WCAB on a monthly basis for the same problem over and over and OVER again. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Ronald Mahurin (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:08 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Ronald Mahurin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thanks for the explanation. Circumstances are different if the DA is knowledgeable, as opposed to a new attorney who bills excessively because he/she is learning. I now have a case with AMTrust. I will let you know if there is a pattern of abuse. Cases can still be referred to the audit unit. Let's hope you get paid more thanb a fraction of what is due. Sincerely Ron Mahurin On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 2:53:25 PM PDT, Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Glad, Ms. Pryor and Ms. Rutkowski that you are both on our side. Mike Richter Santa Clara In a message dated 6/30/2020 11:46:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, listsender@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I consider people who have cushy clients, peace officers etc, to be a completely different section of workers compensation. They have no idea what we do, the fighting we have to do just to get the basics for our clients, including AOE/COE, treatment etc. I'm hit every other day with motions to quash subpoenas for personnel files and claim files when being served nothing for 90 days to 6 months. Nonsense like that. Hollie you and I battle similarly and I'm not making any friends, either. Old school defense attorneys like Mr. Montarbo who spoke at CAAA on Sunday should give classes for claims adjusters and insurance companies on what to look for with an over billing attorney. The entire system suffers because of them, worst of all, the injured workers suffer, needlessly... This system is broken. Dealing with some defense attorneys is like dealing with sport hunters. I'm a vegetarian animal rights activist. Sport hunters and I will neve ever see eye to eye.. And the analogy is correct, some defense attorneys think this is a sport, for which they get to bill and bill and bill. It's not a sport. Human lives are at stake. Many seem to forget that. Kimberley J Pryor, Esq Law offices of Kimberley J Pryor Warrior for the Worker Mobile: 831-206-9745 Office: 818-901-9999 From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:42:21 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Ron, the DAs (Justin Drake, who used to work for LFLM and now works for Coleman Chavez and Colleen Wahl, who used to work for LFLM and is now with CalTrans) used this case for the sole purpose of billing hours for LFLM - as you said. Amtrust (the sleaziest of TPAs) happily paid. I did three Trials on TD, doctor-shopping and PD. The only thing I didn't have to take to Trial was Injury AOE/COE. Two of those Trials were solely for the purpose of billing because the DA did not even have a defense. As it was Amtrust I was litigating, practically everything Amtrust did was sanctionable. I have their Claims Notes to prove it. Now, I deserve to get paid and lots. If I can teach Amtrust some lessons, it is that paying a DA for 137.2 hours means that Amtrust is going to end up paying me many hours as well AND that I really love to cross examine CEs for about six hours as I walk them through all of their Pet DA's bad faith tactics AND that the CE is ultimately responsible for hiring a DA who goes on a billing marathon while pounding sunshine up her ass. The DAs billable hours are relevant, first to get me paid, second to educate each CE, one by one, that vicious unnecessary litigation is costly. I am wildly unpopular with both WCJs and DAs because I fight back. I haven't got the cushy clients - Police/Sheriff/CO - whose claims merely have to be adjusted, or the responsible Defendants - the State/County/City - who want to resolve claims without a pitched battle. App's Attys who have the cushy clients and responsible Defendants don't know what my cases are like. M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver)" < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > To: "Statewide List Service" < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:53:14 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I completely understand why it's relevant. They make our lives h***, delay our clients benefits, and then they get to bill their client more for it. They never get sanctioned for bad faith tactics and we are papered to death with their nonsense and the courts are overburdened with their BS. And "they" the powers that be, wonder why we can't get along. This illustrates that this is no longer a benefits delivery system. It is clearly a delay deny and reduce system. It's good to have evidence that we're not crazy when we say this. Thanks Hollie Kimberley J Pryor, Esq Law offices of Kimberley J Pryor Warrior for the Worker Mobile: 831-206-9745 Office: 818-901-9999 From: Ronald Mahurin (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 9:09:30 PM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Ronald Mahurin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I'm lost as to why this is relevant to you aside from telling CAAA that the defense attorney is going to make partner if he keeps defending your cases. Care to comment? Ron Mahurin Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention Montarbo at all. It is a discussion thread about AmTrust billing practices, specifically regarding a defense attorney billing 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A case. The participants — Alan Fenton, Ronald Mahurin, and Mike Richter — are discussing AmTrust adjusters and defense attorney billing patterns generally. The name 'Montarbo' does not appear anywhere in the subject line, body, or headers of this message.
Alan Fenton Date: June 30, 2020 5:27:00 PM Subject: RE: I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Alan Fenton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings AmTrust either hires adjusters who don’t care, don’t know or are intentionally making each claim the most litigated claim in the history of the WC “system” Take your pick. At least in the end, you will get a better than average fee because of the routine failures that drive you to the WCAB on a monthly basis for the same problem over and over and OVER again. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Ronald Mahurin (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:08 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Ronald Mahurin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thanks for the explanation. Circumstances are different if the DA is knowledgeable, as opposed to a new attorney who bills excessively because he/she is learning. I now have a case with AMTrust. I will let you know if there is a pattern of abuse. Cases can still be referred to the audit unit. Let's hope you get paid more thanb a fraction of what is due. Sincerely Ron Mahurin On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 2:53:25 PM PDT, Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Glad, Ms. Pryor and Ms. Rutkowski that you are both on our side. Mike Richter Santa Clara In a message dated 6/30/2020 11:46:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, listsender@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I consider people who have cushy clients, peace officers etc, to be a completely different section of workers compensation. They have no idea what we do, the fighting we have to do just to get the basics for our clients, including AOE/COE, treatment etc. I'm hit every other day with motions to quash subpoenas for personnel files and claim files when being served nothing for 90 days to 6 months. Nonsense like that. Hollie you and I battle similarly and I'm not making any friends, either. Old school defense attorneys like Mr. Montarbo who spoke at CAAA on Sunday should give classes for claims adjusters and insurance companies on what to look for with an over billing attorney. The entire system suffers because of them, worst of all, the injured workers suffer, needlessly... This system is broken. Dealing with some defense attorneys is like dealing with sport hunters. I'm a vegetarian animal rights activist. Sport hunters and I will neve ever see eye to eye.. And the analogy is correct, some defense attorneys think this is a sport, for which they get to bill and bill and bill. It's not a sport. Human lives are at stake. Many seem to forget that. Kimberley J Pryor, Esq Law offices of Kimberley J Pryor Warrior for the Worker Mobile: 831-206-9745 Office: 818-901-9999 From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:42:21 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Ron, the DAs (Justin Drake, who used to work for LFLM and now works for Coleman Chavez and Colleen Wahl, who used to work for LFLM and is now with CalTrans) used this case for the sole purpose of billing hours for LFLM - as you said. Amtrust (the sleaziest of TPAs) happily paid. I did three Trials on TD, doctor-shopping and PD. The only thing I didn't have to take to Trial was Injury AOE/COE. Two of those Trials were solely for the purpose of billing because the DA did not even have a defense. As it was Amtrust I was litigating, practically everything Amtrust did was sanctionable. I have their Claims Notes to prove it. Now, I deserve to get paid and lots. If I can teach Amtrust some lessons, it is that paying a DA for 137.2 hours means that Amtrust is going to end up paying me many hours as well AND that I really love to cross examine CEs for about six hours as I walk them through all of their Pet DA's bad faith tactics AND that the CE is ultimately responsible for hiring a DA who goes on a billing marathon while pounding sunshine up her ass. The DAs billable hours are relevant, first to get me paid, second to educate each CE, one by one, that vicious unnecessary litigation is costly. I am wildly unpopular with both WCJs and DAs because I fight back. I haven't got the cushy clients - Police/Sheriff/CO - whose claims merely have to be adjusted, or the responsible Defendants - the State/County/City - who want to resolve claims without a pitched battle. App's Attys who have the cushy clients and responsible Defendants don't know what my cases are like. M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver)" < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > To: "Statewide List Service" < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:53:14 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I completely understand why it's relevant. They make our lives h***, delay our clients benefits, and then they get to bill their client more for it. They never get sanctioned for bad faith tactics and we are papered to death with their nonsense and the courts are overburdened with their BS. And "they" the powers that be, wonder why we can't get along. This illustrates that this is no longer a benefits delivery system. It is clearly a delay deny and reduce system. It's good to have evidence that we're not crazy when we say this. Thanks Hollie Kimberley J Pryor, Esq Law offices of Kimberley J Pryor Warrior for the Worker Mobile: 831-206-9745 Office: 818-901-9999 From: Ronald Mahurin (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 9:09:30 PM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A List: lawnet Sent By: Ronald Mahurin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I'm lost as to why this is relevant to you aside from telling CAAA that the defense attorney is going to make partner if he keeps defending your cases. Care to comment? Ron Mahurin Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
AI Analysis:
This message contains no mention of 'Montarbo' anywhere in the subject line, body, or headers. The message is a legal discussion thread on the 'lawnet' listserv between Jason Wells, wcsolorio, and others about QME report timeliness, 8CCR38 regulations, and SB 863. It contains no information about the defense attorney named Montarbo and is entirely unrelated to evaluating that attorney.
Jason Wells Date: March 13, 2017 10:22:00 PM Subject: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Jason Wells Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Understood. Sorry, I should have been more clear on how I am relating the recent cases: Party doesn't object until after the report is received = cost of QME incurred; additional cost and starting over would seem to be disfavored. Jason -----Original Message----- From: wcsolorio@yahoo.com Sent: March 13, 2017 3:39:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) The issue here, Mr. Wells, is the INITIAL report. That can be thrown out and the case law is not trending against that. What you are talking about is supplemental reports or re-evaluation situations. In those scenarios, what you are talking about is true. zeke modesto -----Original Message----- From: caaa_jasonwells@wellswellslaw.com Sent: March 13, 2017 11:38:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) On this issue...the cases lately (mostly panel decisions for full disclosure) have been trending in the direction of NOT throwing out the report for timeliness (on a technicality) and the Board has been looking at all of the facts. For instance, if your QME has submitted multiple reports and/or performed multiple evaluations, they don't want to abandon the QME. With the latest decisions lately, it seems that ex parte communication is the only sure-fire way that they want to throw out a report. I am sure this varies from judge to judge, but with SB 863 and it's intent to reduce QME costs, starting over again seems heavily disfavored by the Board and I would imagine it would be supported by the DCAs based on the intent of the law. Jason Wells Humboldt County -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: March 10, 2017 11:51:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) I found my notes (I do not have the Plesha case however): Clearly it is no more appropriate to timely object and then withdraw the objection after the report issues than it is to wait til the report comes and only object if the report is adverse. Once the timely objection is made to an untimely report the report is inadmissible and a new panel is required (Labor Code section 139.2(j), 4628(e) Reg 38(b) The Montarbo/Stewart index cites a panel decision Plesha 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379 which ruled that where the objection occurs the WCJ had no discretion to admit the untimely report following the objection. The Code and regs only require one party to object. Thus you were in fact prejudiced by defendant's unscrupulous actions. You were entitled to rely upon the defendant's objection which invalidated the report before it issued. This is the opposite side of the same issue as waiting for the report to issue and then objecting only if it is adverse. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Guy Medford (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:43:40 AM Subject: [lawnet] looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:guymedford@yahoo.com ' Guy Medford ] [ mailto:guymedford@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20looking%20for%20case%2Fcitation%20re%208CCR38%2C%2031.5%28a%29%2813%29 ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20looking%20for%20case%2Fcitation%20re%208CCR38%2C%2031.5%28a%29%2813%29 ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Hello all, below is an older string last answered by Hollie talking about a case that I never saw identified.... Anybody know the name and citation of that case? Thank you in advance. Guy "There is a case, and I have heard WCJs say the same - where a party objects to a PQME before the report issues and then the untimely PQME is a favorable report, the party cannot reverse the objection" (Hollie) Guy A. Medford Esq., Attorney at Law Law Offices of Guy Allen Medford 306 East Main Street suite 304 Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 227-8110 fax (209) 227-8062 www.guymedford.com _____________Historical string_____________ There is a case, and I have heard WCJs say the same - where a party objects to a PQME before the report issues and then the untimely PQME is a favorable report, the party cannot reverse the objection and agree with that report. So, the party objecting had better be prepared to abandon that PQME report even if it is fabulous and the opposing party will never let the objecting party forget what a stupid stunt that was. I addition, it is my experience that a letter informing the PQME that the PQME report is untimely and the PQME will not get paid for an untimely report, this letter makes some PQMEs stop preparing the report so no report ever goes out. So the parties go and get a Replacement Panel without knowing which side the report favored. I would think that a strategy of objecting to the timeliness of every PQME report for the shear hell of it would loose you some good, or at least middle of the road, reports and delay the resolution of the claim by years. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Edward F. Figaredo (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:40:50 AM Subject: RE: [lawnet] PQME Objection-Two Questions List: lawnet Sent By: Edward F. Figaredo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you. I understand that. The issue is can defatty object prematurely, as he clearly does if he does not wait until the 35th day to lodge an objection. In other words, can I object to every single PQME on the third day that he saw my client, or must I wait 35 days to object in order for my objhection to be valid? E.Figaredo El Monte. From: A. Keith Lesar (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 1:53 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] PQME Objection-Two Questions List: lawnet Sent By: A. Keith Lesar Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Five day extension rule does not apply. Doctor is not being mailed something that requires a response within 30 days, he/she is sending something that is to be sent within 30 days of the date of examination. Keith Lesar Aptos On 10/12/2016 1:44 PM, Edward F. Figaredo (lawnet listserver) wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Edward F. Figaredo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Under Regulation 38(a) the PQME must issue an initial report within 30 days of examination. I presume 5 days are added if report is mailed per 10507. If the report is not issued timely a party can object and request a new panel. Question is, if a party makes an objection prematurely on the 30th day, or even on the 34th day does it annul the objection? Even if the report is not issued say 10-20 days later? Authority? ___________________________________ Edward F. Figaredo, Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES EDWARD F. FIGAREDO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10507 Valley Boulevard, Ste 510 El Monte, California 91731-9998 (626)444-9542
AI Analysis:
This message contains no mention of 'Montarbo' anywhere in the subject line, body, or headers. The message is a legal discussion thread on the 'lawnet' listserv about QME report timeliness, 8 CCR 38, and case law trends, involving Esequiel Solorio, Jason Wells, and Hollie from TCLC. There is no reference to the defense attorney being evaluated.
Esequiel Solorio Date: March 13, 2017 3:39:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Esequiel Solorio Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings The issue here, Mr. Wells, is the INITIAL report. That can be thrown out and the case law is not trending against that. What you are talking about is supplemental reports or re-evaluation situations. In those scenarios, what you are talking about is true. zeke modesto -----Original Message----- From: caaa_jasonwells@wellswellslaw.com Sent: March 13, 2017 11:38:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) On this issue...the cases lately (mostly panel decisions for full disclosure) have been trending in the direction of NOT throwing out the report for timeliness (on a technicality) and the Board has been looking at all of the facts. For instance, if your QME has submitted multiple reports and/or performed multiple evaluations, they don't want to abandon the QME. With the latest decisions lately, it seems that ex parte communication is the only sure-fire way that they want to throw out a report. I am sure this varies from judge to judge, but with SB 863 and it's intent to reduce QME costs, starting over again seems heavily disfavored by the Board and I would imagine it would be supported by the DCAs based on the intent of the law. Jason Wells Humboldt County -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: March 10, 2017 11:51:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) I found my notes (I do not have the Plesha case however): Clearly it is no more appropriate to timely object and then withdraw the objection after the report issues than it is to wait til the report comes and only object if the report is adverse. Once the timely objection is made to an untimely report the report is inadmissible and a new panel is required (Labor Code section 139.2(j), 4628(e) Reg 38(b) The Montarbo/Stewart index cites a panel decision Plesha 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379 which ruled that where the objection occurs the WCJ had no discretion to admit the untimely report following the objection. The Code and regs only require one party to object. Thus you were in fact prejudiced by defendant's unscrupulous actions. You were entitled to rely upon the defendant's objection which invalidated the report before it issued. This is the opposite side of the same issue as waiting for the report to issue and then objecting only if it is adverse. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Guy Medford (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:43:40 AM Subject: [lawnet] looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:guymedford@yahoo.com ' Guy Medford ] [ mailto:guymedford@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20looking%20for%20case%2Fcitation%20re%208CCR38%2C%2031.5%28a%29%2813%29 ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20looking%20for%20case%2Fcitation%20re%208CCR38%2C%2031.5%28a%29%2813%29 ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Hello all, below is an older string last answered by Hollie talking about a case that I never saw identified.... Anybody know the name and citation of that case? Thank you in advance. Guy "There is a case, and I have heard WCJs say the same - where a party objects to a PQME before the report issues and then the untimely PQME is a favorable report, the party cannot reverse the objection" (Hollie) Guy A. Medford Esq., Attorney at Law Law Offices of Guy Allen Medford 306 East Main Street suite 304 Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 227-8110 fax (209) 227-8062 www.guymedford.com _____________Historical string_____________ There is a case, and I have heard WCJs say the same - where a party objects to a PQME before the report issues and then the untimely PQME is a favorable report, the party cannot reverse the objection and agree with that report. So, the party objecting had better be prepared to abandon that PQME report even if it is fabulous and the opposing party will never let the objecting party forget what a stupid stunt that was. I addition, it is my experience that a letter informing the PQME that the PQME report is untimely and the PQME will not get paid for an untimely report, this letter makes some PQMEs stop preparing the report so no report ever goes out. So the parties go and get a Replacement Panel without knowing which side the report favored. I would think that a strategy of objecting to the timeliness of every PQME report for the shear hell of it would loose you some good, or at least middle of the road, reports and delay the resolution of the claim by years. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Edward F. Figaredo (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:40:50 AM Subject: RE: [lawnet] PQME Objection-Two Questions List: lawnet Sent By: Edward F. Figaredo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you. I understand that. The issue is can defatty object prematurely, as he clearly does if he does not wait until the 35th day to lodge an objection. In other words, can I object to every single PQME on the third day that he saw my client, or must I wait 35 days to object in order for my objhection to be valid? E.Figaredo El Monte. From: A. Keith Lesar (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 1:53 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] PQME Objection-Two Questions List: lawnet Sent By: A. Keith Lesar Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Five day extension rule does not apply. Doctor is not being mailed something that requires a response within 30 days, he/she is sending something that is to be sent within 30 days of the date of examination. Keith Lesar Aptos On 10/12/2016 1:44 PM, Edward F. Figaredo (lawnet listserver) wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Edward F. Figaredo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Under Regulation 38(a) the PQME must issue an initial report within 30 days of examination. I presume 5 days are added if report is mailed per 10507. If the report is not issued timely a party can object and request a new panel. Question is, if a party makes an objection prematurely on the 30th day, or even on the 34th day does it annul the objection? Even if the report is not issued say 10-20 days later? Authority? ___________________________________ Edward F. Figaredo, Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES EDWARD F. FIGAREDO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10507 Valley Boulevard, Ste 510 El Monte, California 91731-9998 (626)444-9542
AI Analysis:
This message thread is entirely about a legal procedural question regarding 'Removal or Recon?' and references the Plesha decision. The name 'Montarbo' does not appear anywhere in the message — not in the subject line, body, signatures, or headers. The participants are M. Hollie Rutkowski and Jeffrey C. Dittrich, and the discussion involves Mr. Capurro's legal arguments. There is no mention of the defense attorney being evaluated.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: December 09, 2015 3:45:00 PM Subject: RE: Removal or Recon? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you! I don't know how I did not pick this case up before. Very helpful. M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento , CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: Jeffrey C. Dittrich (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 1:26 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Jeffrey C. Dittrich Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Here is Plesha. Jeffrey Dittrich, Esq. Worker's Comp./Personal Injury Salinas/San Jose (831)442-7232 - Office (831)594-6477 - Cell jcdittrich@injuryattny.com From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:40 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Could somebody please post the Plesha decision mentioned by Mr. Capurro - 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379? M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento , CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: Jeffrey C. Dittrich (lawnet listserver) [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:20 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Jeffrey C. Dittrich Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mr. Capurro is correct in his law. I cannot picture a Salinas judge making such an error. However, I still hold that filing for a removal is a waste of time unless you use it to get the judge to rethink the decision when you cite Plesha panel decision. However, if the Board wants to split hairs, they could rule that up to this point there is no harm which will only come if the trial judge admits the QME report in question. You will get a second bite from the apple when it goes to trial. Talk to the defense attorney and see if you can make that attorney since the reasonableness of your position. Jeffrey Dittrich, Esq. Worker's Comp./Personal Injury Salinas/San Jose (831)442-7232 - Office (831)594-6477 - Cell jcdittrich@injuryattny.com From: Joseph V. Capurro (lawnet listserver) [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:51 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Joseph V. Capurro Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings It is properly a Petition for Removal. I disagree with other comments posted that this is a waste of time. Clearly it is no more appropriate to timely object and then withdraw the objection after the report issues than it is to wait til the report comes and only object if the report is adverse. Once the timely objection is made to an untimely report the report is inadmissible and a new panel is required (Labor Code section 139.2(j), 4628(e) Reg 38(b) The Montarbo/Stewart index cites a panel decision Plesha 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379 which ruled that where the objection occurs the WCJ had no discretion to admit the untimely report following the objection. The Code and regs only require one party to object. Thus you were in fact prejudiced by defendant's unscrupulous actions. You were entitled to rely upon the defendant's objection which invalidated the report befrore it issued. This is the opposite side of the same issue as waiting for the report to issue and then objecting only if it is adverse. Joe Capurro From: Nooshin Dalili (lawnet listserver) [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:33 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Nooshin Dalili Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a case in which DA objected to late PQME report. PQME issued a favorable report for Defs. Defs withdrew their objection and accepted the late report. I then requested a new panel based on Da's objection to late report and filed a Petition to strike late PQME report and requested an order for new Pqme list based on def's objection. WCJ denied my petition for a new PQME list (because I had not objected to late report). I would like to challenge the WCJ's ruling denying my petition. Do I file a removal or recon? I think it would be a removal. What do you think? Nooshin Dalili San Jose _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message thread is entirely about a procedural workers' comp question regarding Removal or Reconsideration, referencing the 'Plesha' panel decision. The name 'Montarbo' does not appear anywhere in the message — not in the subject line, body, signatures, or forwarded headers. The attorneys mentioned are Jeff Dittrich, Hollie Rutkowski, and Joseph Capurro. There is no information about Montarbo that would be useful for evaluating how easy or difficult they are to deal with.
Jeff Dittrich Date: December 09, 2015 3:26:00 PM Subject: RE: Removal or Recon? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: 2010_cal_wrk_comp_pd_lexis_3.pdf (29 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Jeffrey C. Dittrich Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Here is Plesha. Jeffrey Dittrich, Esq. Worker's Comp./Personal Injury Salinas/San Jose (831)442-7232 - Office (831)594-6477 - Cell jcdittrich@injuryattny.com From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:40 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Could somebody please post the Plesha decision mentioned by Mr. Capurro - 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379? M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: Jeffrey C. Dittrich (lawnet listserver) [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:20 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Jeffrey C. Dittrich Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mr. Capurro is correct in his law. I cannot picture a Salinas judge making such an error. However, I still hold that filing for a removal is a waste of time unless you use it to get the judge to rethink the decision when you cite Plesha panel decision. However, if the Board wants to split hairs, they could rule that up to this point there is no harm which will only come if the trial judge admits the QME report in question. You will get a second bite from the apple when it goes to trial. Talk to the defense attorney and see if you can make that attorney since the reasonableness of your position. Jeffrey Dittrich, Esq. Worker's Comp./Personal Injury Salinas/San Jose (831)442-7232 - Office (831)594-6477 - Cell jcdittrich@injuryattny.com From: Joseph V. Capurro (lawnet listserver) [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:51 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Joseph V. Capurro Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings It is properly a Petition for Removal. I disagree with other comments posted that this is a waste of time. Clearly it is no more appropriate to timely object and then withdraw the objection after the report issues than it is to wait til the report comes and only object if the report is adverse. Once the timely objection is made to an untimely report the report is inadmissible and a new panel is required (Labor Code section 139.2(j), 4628(e) Reg 38(b) The Montarbo/Stewart index cites a panel decision Plesha 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379 which ruled that where the objection occurs the WCJ had no discretion to admit the untimely report following the objection. The Code and regs only require one party to object. Thus you were in fact prejudiced by defendant's unscrupulous actions. You were entitled to rely upon the defendant's objection which invalidated the report befrore it issued. This is the opposite side of the same issue as waiting for the report to issue and then objecting only if it is adverse. Joe Capurro From: Nooshin Dalili (lawnet listserver) [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:33 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Nooshin Dalili Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a case in which DA objected to late PQME report. PQME issued a favorable report for Defs. Defs withdrew their objection and accepted the late report. I then requested a new panel based on Da's objection to late report and filed a Petition to strike late PQME report and requested an order for new Pqme list based on def's objection. WCJ denied my petition for a new PQME list (because I had not objected to late report). I would like to challenge the WCJ's ruling denying my petition. Do I file a removal or recon? I think it would be a removal. What do you think? Nooshin Dalili San Jose _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention 'Montarbo' anywhere in the subject line, body, or any of the forwarded/quoted content. The thread discusses a general strategy question about defense attorneys resetting evaluations to get applicants P&S sooner, with participants including Ron Ehrman, Hollie Rutkowski, and Dane Gilliam. The defense attorney referenced is described only generically as 'Def Atty' or 'DA' with no name given. There is no connection to Montarbo in this message.
ron ehrman Date: February 10, 2021 11:39:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: ron ehrman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Simple. Tell your client not to attend. You can write Def and tell them Applicant wont attend absent WCAB Order and that Def should cancel exam to mitigate expenses. Or since the Def Atty is being a dolt, don't give him a heads up... rpe la -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: February 10, 2021 11:36:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? I don't know if it matters, but this case was on pre-1/1/05 date of injury. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fthe-compensation-law-center.business.site%2f&c=E,1,9ZPxSJPAn0bKBfKmW_iZj4Mx6MMSBznJqbQwmq-mayXmmVkkDArQdkL530Y-8msgZsgQ0aiAuMazuvvwNqowSiGzbDIW9B48f401bzeA-Dhs4reS1Xg32w,,&typo=1 ' The Compensation Law Center ] Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:22:16 AM Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com ' Dane Gilliam ] [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5BEXTERNAL%5DRe%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5BEXTERNAL%5DRe%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.caaa.org%2findex.cfm%3fpg%3dsearch&c=E,1,DHcefHG6agUm0lCGK0XZAK84k2N7JPo2XdTqPckIoExkCMqrewwQ5XFVYgOdgSDb3THQe9vsBDg8L7Ygf3r6beyrVD0pTFl5IjlKofArZCg,&typo=1 ' Search ] [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.caaa.org%2findex.cfm%3fpg%3dlistviewer%26lsAction%3dlistSettings&c=E,1,P74eRqI_C7XshSUqjridIahGA-J3t-cUZV6F46onJFbh6TUjq_DW3zw_vTokwU_xzbsGVJPWwsNgxs5O6Oi9wHAInjVoIU7q-n2cFHUPz57rrJ_aqtDqGXR9&typo=1 ' Settings ] There is a brief discussion on this issue in the Stewart/Montarbo index: It says there is no need for the parties to repeat "AME Dance" of 4061/4062. Batavia, Inc. (Alcantar) 62 CCC 1134. [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bentleymore.com%2f&c=E,1,7YPdX4iYPUZCjgtfFvNEG0n0aoiW9CrvUZJpz0XeSHp2IGMKMuzh1p8FQpV72JePETLjoOauHmu6V1iuebvpodt1ORUV5mhACt3G4P-nvJA,&typo=1 ] DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com ' dgilliam@bentleymore.com ] 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:05 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:hollie@tclc.org ' Hollie Rutkowski ] [ mailto:hollie@tclc.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FNmL9TYVSbIXuKBZsmf9PtugGSDIuQ34whel3fKLiOBNKfs94T7xWn0hsToW8-1Jp%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh0%2FMkpcx0C3o8cNi1Y7h85SdNhuYSbmTX7HJxolwOA9rX0&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914728572%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=d69x1IbYTRGu812HXncXcWpNg8z%2FVmyreuWRfdc1Cbw%3D&reserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FNmL9TYVSbIXuKBZsmf9PtugGSDIuQ34whel3fKLiOBN_nFD-WtNIt1fkXbBlrxA3go49Ie23FzL5UzbYQluDFkbxCSAvkSXclZOcEHEFl9E%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh1%2FxbWnujJsvh64nzYAaPLAi9sclm0f5riQMo1RQ4AYFUo&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914728572%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=xl1YzBYFdwXuFYlONXBox0TKNjxxmI6wXeUOZAz%2BnSU%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] I petitioned for sanctions against a DA who cancelled a Psychiatric AME re-exam when the AME, in response to my letter requesting a Supplemental Report, responded that he would need a Psychiatric AME re-exam. No LC 4061/4062 required. The facts were that,. while IW was not represented, the PTP, who was a Ph.D., NOT an M.D., request a Psychiatric evaluation to determine what psyche medications the IW should receive (obviously, the Ph.D. could not prescribe medications). CE ignored this RFA. I became IW's atty. DA and I agreed to Psychiatric AME,\who originally agreed with the PTP P&S/MMI date becasue DA withheld the RFA for Psychiatric evaluation, stating that he was not required to tell me what was in his Medical Index to the AME - that sorry SOB was sooooo ignorant of WC rules and Regs that he thought App's Atty was not entitled ro know what medical records he was sending to AME. [Anyone want to know who this ignorant DA is? Sac MulFil Christopher Philippides. He also said that MulFil had a new rule, DAs were only allowed to correspond by phone and USPS, MulFil DAs would not longer accept emails or faxes. That instruction was by email from his secretary. Of course, this was an out-and-out lie.] I set re-exam with Psychiatric AME, as Psychiatric AME requested. Christopher Philippides canceled re-exam, stating I had not made LC 4062 objection. (My Petition for Sanctions is quite lengthy. I'll be calling the Claims Manager as my witness.) So, there is an exception to LC 4061/62 objection - when AME requests re-exam in a Supplemental Report. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9kt6vZauTnyjt1EvNOSRJKuXRhcBOsNDddRnuBQSH0ewXDuGtlGRNhZG94v3A1Rga0SacL9IjeY5a5XfinXYiEgDejwwDhxRvT7feCPsFUNYBxFGgGl1pfbU4Uun_hJSgEuvpSMTyU5FyNXEa3sQaSx66W3mHzXtj6tevFr-ElkVlAULdDnRdv8L8M2V7cuaIYJ-AIAq8zdoDd3DArv38xgbbnE0FCqoGOOjW846Rx3PLngftfrJjyffpfeqXDyh2CVL7BVqIP68Rc9781yeO1A%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh2%2FlsqAHs7k06c9tvkalO-2gIYjrA3SGM9y5yczjkklmu8&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914738565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=DrPbdjDt8EoFoSmzoGijB3eP4KQohLjGrdQahS61D48%3D&reserved=0 ' The Compensation Law Center ] Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver)" < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ' listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > To: "Statewide List Service" < [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ' lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ] > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:09:16 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:pmcworkcomp@aol.com ' Philip Cohen ] [ mailto:pmcworkcomp@aol.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd34BWFStUhwEsCpF0pEZhI7FCu7_hNkT5bZyp5i2gUtx0RIpEd2yFEuUs4eKJd5xYeQgYE96QjbJhyhvfgbjjM9fDtRnL64_z7xLF92dB1fMn4jVlE2asUlS3271EGpy8VNcZ7HyRz3-ZiFj8aHS1eyZ4yNTlJdVSYn_2VANGQeA5zeXIudKIoH7rgDsegTe-MD9johcTsKU7jx03Doxle1PH-nva1nsmcFeI4sCiaY9pOCIWczlz2SbaZfmoM28sdajBQSu-CCdmUfKVk795GGKzdzXcB_noqzBtjsBh9EP7BHovT4NtUaRh7VCLaNKxV3hTKbEoqHbK-nLJYY6Z843ssp1nAow8K9Y3SXrBgTd3JIvpymxJ9GiOEXI0DaGujO_oAOSrCyxm4wkklOgWxG%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh3%2FuTRMd_2e8-VP-2NZ_zu1GNu6T6Xlp104ESNhZYDiMCQ&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914738565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=DDp6jrY%2FP0wq9VRbwRgea5MKXkrfnO2mhFoYPUBBnsU%3D&r eserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd34BWFStUhwEsCpF0pEZhI7FCu7_hNkT5bZyp5i2gUtx0RIpEd2yFEuUs4eKJd5xYdJhrWrGdeYN-Z_wqFNj-CbvMD-wu_VH13YcLgNJOhQrUSpnXjKimuSJ7i2wcv5vRNuJDRHeRfG0rzaRWNauhjDvazBQNMha9iJ4SNR309boQrt3Mumwo9JvQAXv8fZyx6RZZptwk25vGOA8Kqdzw-4OUHnVhTemYFuTfFm0pcdTyAHlQbHoi79dFm7ncVemo1nfX8tviGXg9WgUxtmDfbC95UNU_Ka3GQsin-BND8US2Se0tTpMlcM0pM2_sHyF861_M1IbinkVIL04rGt_iiD8Y0KoYYL5XbvmS37xEdDiY3JBXo__Hiku1BAdSqvfTXVCYQLcprd-bA86az7CgYZHXQztIijC_vYiX59gkDDnZNRG8JR0d1LdYHOI-MsPhM%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh4%2FMUjandSm9wla5Frod5DlN-RDG81Wx1QLdg51K-mutAw&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914748563%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=s8eKojq DcJIEJstmT2heI55VKL3%2FMaWR0O1r%2BhcCHEY%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] Assumes original was legal per 4061/62. There is no provision for a reevaluation without a new objection. No new issue to resolve. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,_gKiZoTSZDKUUJmV-KwHbz8Wchre3hyLutZabJgBFHiaRV7ZUthpSXG675dWzOPfVwtrypp27_4j1SBsgsc9vzKyAnkRCq7k-8ZnMqcPeKgxop8piGBVyQ,,&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,D9lL9cZSs8QcP13QIteZJpxotXre2-Jv6Hj_Z4ZHbQHI7tP5WpEzLDZQqGfdTsKKDBCwkf_KSuM3W48-Q1TEn0Genza-AU5OktZK2y6IrUNw_RI3tO2haw,,&typo=1 ] -----Original Message----- From: Esequiel Solorio (lawnet listserver) < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ' listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > To: Statewide List Service < [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ' lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ] > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 5:22 pm Subject: Re:[lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:wcsolorio@yahoo.com ' Esequiel Solorio ] [ mailto:wcsolorio@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd00PHNmmdHABCsItY54qKzgw2131Jr2NthXTZAPgo724dcFVWA5P-3z6ugVu6_0ABS23lG2smo2DsEJUjP37L20jOvIiCHbfD9eWb_BTYornrEVkVI1NenvugNecC9fZOx_13JaZnUxZrw5FIEdw-F5IkeG0v7vjFYR-419yMGLlkab4nMgO8mv9Py9K9MA7qvwFDvv8sCa1_z4bAEuZfimClZb9xfQLZV6J6n129861wOUr3wV0Cg86nOK8sJwOmytEUhCZGgizeiDXsDDK_uP9MNmJKu1_cplmqdBSE_S5S2-eYTWps7W03etqHSWdLUVfjW-2QhrWtH5eiLSfGEnGZGYHs_Q-lYWnEvTBKO_m1eu0oTN_CS0m6cshTI1wkjs9FgqIm6sUzHxRoDhtSj9bu0ajWP644DXoaBzFR-Qd1Zi8fFo8ULyfubIA8BwSW-bpRDQAyOojGYRZQVQ-1ISZ-lnO7mCJ_ySYmgCEZ968YE8f-nhV_PP1VvGU1eHiQ83R-VBwgA3rZp6Qdt9YzEvGmXuZVQ4AMM6wuygdix_oacECSSlqJ3kzE1wOVPcAjwkBTyKgPPRmDTFzhzDSHnTlwdCf57VMptEK98bDfjA3JBzTRGUCY5BfT-3R0DQBiT8nOwgaIrXO4MGfqN9GroQrlQeJvyW2474uUHAwmCeMNo8VS2pVb8DEOoUc9qO2f8z2mYkqYKbO5adfF4rsC34BEzgf7dbx4kSEYglin1W3Z5xLuEauuasbLL9eNc7avHcfafhlD4RLzre4K 8YWlEj0mHP9Ab3-JMNJ-04dNoayJplmWhgAFwzR78qaeK4WShnFWX0WU9reDJyxUSs0UMx9lBvnOGBlsBo9hLPT8vUWfhskBwq93dJlshe-FBRS_zBkPA3o0SSUp0L15-X1dTKap_GyX-tqcROB87TIeo3AyslvRssbmF25L6QctiOKHU%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh5%2Fac2jzl1wo7nMSA9cVBOrRWoTuUikRV2uuSzNubAGuRo&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914758558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=aCbTOBlaygKIydm1ACtcwzsXU35kuHnwr0BGSaSfJgc%3D&reserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd00PHNmmdHABCsItY54qKzgw2131Jr2NthXTZAPgo724dcFVWA5P-3z6ugVu6_0ABS23lG2smo2DsEJUjP37L20jOvIiCHbfD9eWb_BTYornrEVkVI1NenvugNecC9fZOx_13JaZnUxZrw5FIEdw-F5IkeG0v7vjFYR-419yMGLlkab4nMgO8mv9Py9K9MA7qvwFDvv8sCa1_z4bAEuZfimClZb9xfQLZV6J6n1298616FqeOlayf8iNEkMB1hTyF7EQF54uSlufFdRhU0qP3vGGrS36-v0c3yzD8cl5OlRGBxLSqAB9Wifc6cze3s9sg5888vDP8SxybUMzeWqOCtR1d612XhCHUZh5jwSoP4pEqlCCBY3mKF0psCHrv1xPMDqWmgX-Ni9fZ9Q8gcRfH7b1SzpB_DK7F9G9EYkhtRdSd-mY7h_gh0CrRCBtjOKdDsqdezW7J8oew65XKNNivEAbs1j67-k5liF0DVV3v7N6FRh5b_jkY1w3iQwST02Idh0KWWlMhCuLo7adzsHHsJ2bLL9kHvHGBUdLgVXpEle778aaMLHvDjnSA71GP9gTbOafLPkzskIduzDrqOQC2_mnkhVqrzgeMpk440tfxuK8183_GKZQ7NHbuCzsQnXImndlJU9oZYcgwjLcl53cuoY9ExVqKSUJzNeTZubhmP6xcmr5R2kXnkS1tUcIO6mcfXSe8CDdAIrKtt632Ny8QhEHhPOffYM70jBJRL-jsCnyMlkDHGyyDXJA8ZcaKm8a3HEyti96gVD4XtMkR T_dI400mrw-_yukCPh1sIuPcAN00naVH5pnM54OPeEVI1-VHKjUnpJSQJUtkhBgx1VuT34h5r-N6o7uGb-eIqEktFy3GMB_ggBjaJGgBc1BT6NBdAM4jlfUAVFTzdStxYFaKxmMFlTdQGasZmUh0u7NNBVBU_pNT36NYOITaDFXTldoiWH5jVh-qzZUeGP2YhDGKuqaFf3WY0vX5cm5FGVE900-N24c3RuBWEpjZcClEbeDpDaaHEq4WUXWRIBmuQdYrNMxmnk-AKfduBs9WKMGDqfLA%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh6%2F4snFgcex3m0UgXXzkFD4m4dhWqhSfDXmCcKhNuqgCB0&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914758558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=CAfCbh0X0OQF4NSN33e3nr1Lq9XjECe8pduBZ0LlJYw%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] Ok Mr. Cohen you got me, i have questions. Are you assuming the original panel was not requested pursuant to a 4061/4062 objection? Why would you need a second such objection for a re-eval as such objection is only needed to start, not restart the panel process. Zeke Modesto -----Original Message----- From: [ mailto:ibrahim@mashneylaw.com ' ibrahim@mashneylaw.com ] Sent: February 09, 2021 5:31:00 PM To: [ mailto:lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com ' lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com ] Subject: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? I had the same issue very recently. I followed Mr. Cohen's advice. I canceled the re-eval and wrote a letter to the DA explaining the lack of renewed 4061/4062 objection and what applicant needs before getting to P&S per the medical reporting. DA took no further action and agreed that applicant needs treatment. Ibrahim Ellahib, Esq. Mashney Law Offices, APC. 335 N Brookhurst St ' Anaheim, CA 92801 T 714.535.5090 ' F 714.535.7263 [ mailto:Ibrahim@MashneyLaw.com ' Ibrahim@MashneyLaw.com ] ' [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.MashneyLaw.com&c=E,1,4g4b6iaUQSXNeDxEo9LzEs-jvMGBCDgXbG0dzTUDxDHOmc7i7RJgMge9pzlBeRv22-smduxer_C2HYiVeEFgoiR-dvg3INls_uvTuO2S&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.MashneyLaw.com&c=E,1,4g4b6iaUQSXNeDxEo9LzEs-jvMGBCDgXbG0dzTUDxDHOmc7i7RJgMge9pzlBeRv22-smduxer_C2HYiVeEFgoiR-dvg3INls_uvTuO2S&typo=1 ] From: Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver) Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:07 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings By law if testing is needed to rule out, not P and S. I have defense constantly trying to set up AME and QME re-evals just to get a P and S report. Most cases, there is no 4061/62 objection, so no right to the reeval and I don't have client go and judges have always agreed with my position. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,3rKLUdD4DF7bDbnR2QGDo5U8KiagjxZQ_JsBZhPOBD4TQHDaPIbsNi0v8D3UlaJ1KPmOj2SFpFEujGfXalJCoy7pM-ZAFLTj7h4gqEb0ctiLlsuFQeKc0eM,&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,3rKLUdD4DF7bDbnR2QGDo5U8KiagjxZQ_JsBZhPOBD4TQHDaPIbsNi0v8D3UlaJ1KPmOj2SFpFEujGfXalJCoy7pM-ZAFLTj7h4gqEb0ctiLlsuFQeKc0eM,&typo=1 ] -----Original Message----- From: Ramin Saedi (lawnet listserver) > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 2:59 pm Subject: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dear mates, How do you stop the defendant from keep setting up QME reevaluations in hopes of getting the applicant P and S sooner when the recommended diagnostic or treatments by the QME has not been done or approved? It has become extremely annoying especially with the ADR cases. Thanks in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention 'Montarbo' anywhere in the subject line, body, or headers. The thread is a general discussion among applicant attorneys about how to prevent defense attorneys from resetting medical evaluations to accelerate P&S status, involving Lawrence R. Whiting, Hollie Rutkowski, and Dane Gilliam. The subject line references 'DA' (defense attorney) generically, not Montarbo specifically. There is no reference to Montarbo by name, firm, or any identifiable characteristic anywhere in this message chain.
"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: February 10, 2021 12:53:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I believe there should be a difference in the "AME dance" and the present requirement to for an objection requirement for a PQME. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: February 10, 2021 11:36:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? I don't know if it matters, but this case was on pre-1/1/05 date of injury. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fthe-compensation-law-center.business.site%2f&c=E,1,9ZPxSJPAn0bKBfKmW_iZj4Mx6MMSBznJqbQwmq-mayXmmVkkDArQdkL530Y-8msgZsgQ0aiAuMazuvvwNqowSiGzbDIW9B48f401bzeA-Dhs4reS1Xg32w,,&typo=1 ' The Compensation Law Center ] Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:22:16 AM Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com ' Dane Gilliam ] [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5BEXTERNAL%5DRe%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5BEXTERNAL%5DRe%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.caaa.org%2findex.cfm%3fpg%3dsearch&c=E,1,DHcefHG6agUm0lCGK0XZAK84k2N7JPo2XdTqPckIoExkCMqrewwQ5XFVYgOdgSDb3THQe9vsBDg8L7Ygf3r6beyrVD0pTFl5IjlKofArZCg,&typo=1 ' Search ] [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.caaa.org%2findex.cfm%3fpg%3dlistviewer%26lsAction%3dlistSettings&c=E,1,P74eRqI_C7XshSUqjridIahGA-J3t-cUZV6F46onJFbh6TUjq_DW3zw_vTokwU_xzbsGVJPWwsNgxs5O6Oi9wHAInjVoIU7q-n2cFHUPz57rrJ_aqtDqGXR9&typo=1 ' Settings ] There is a brief discussion on this issue in the Stewart/Montarbo index: It says there is no need for the parties to repeat "AME Dance" of 4061/4062. Batavia, Inc. (Alcantar) 62 CCC 1134. [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bentleymore.com%2f&c=E,1,7YPdX4iYPUZCjgtfFvNEG0n0aoiW9CrvUZJpz0XeSHp2IGMKMuzh1p8FQpV72JePETLjoOauHmu6V1iuebvpodt1ORUV5mhACt3G4P-nvJA,&typo=1 ] DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: [ mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com ' dgilliam@bentleymore.com ] 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:05 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:hollie@tclc.org ' Hollie Rutkowski ] [ mailto:hollie@tclc.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FNmL9TYVSbIXuKBZsmf9PtugGSDIuQ34whel3fKLiOBNKfs94T7xWn0hsToW8-1Jp%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh0%2FMkpcx0C3o8cNi1Y7h85SdNhuYSbmTX7HJxolwOA9rX0&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914728572%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=d69x1IbYTRGu812HXncXcWpNg8z%2FVmyreuWRfdc1Cbw%3D&reserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FNmL9TYVSbIXuKBZsmf9PtugGSDIuQ34whel3fKLiOBN_nFD-WtNIt1fkXbBlrxA3go49Ie23FzL5UzbYQluDFkbxCSAvkSXclZOcEHEFl9E%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh1%2FxbWnujJsvh64nzYAaPLAi9sclm0f5riQMo1RQ4AYFUo&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914728572%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=xl1YzBYFdwXuFYlONXBox0TKNjxxmI6wXeUOZAz%2BnSU%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] I petitioned for sanctions against a DA who cancelled a Psychiatric AME re-exam when the AME, in response to my letter requesting a Supplemental Report, responded that he would need a Psychiatric AME re-exam. No LC 4061/4062 required. The facts were that,. while IW was not represented, the PTP, who was a Ph.D., NOT an M.D., request a Psychiatric evaluation to determine what psyche medications the IW should receive (obviously, the Ph.D. could not prescribe medications). CE ignored this RFA. I became IW's atty. DA and I agreed to Psychiatric AME,\who originally agreed with the PTP P&S/MMI date becasue DA withheld the RFA for Psychiatric evaluation, stating that he was not required to tell me what was in his Medical Index to the AME - that sorry SOB was sooooo ignorant of WC rules and Regs that he thought App's Atty was not entitled ro know what medical records he was sending to AME. [Anyone want to know who this ignorant DA is? Sac MulFil Christopher Philippides. He also said that MulFil had a new rule, DAs were only allowed to correspond by phone and USPS, MulFil DAs would not longer accept emails or faxes. That instruction was by email from his secretary. Of course, this was an out-and-out lie.] I set re-exam with Psychiatric AME, as Psychiatric AME requested. Christopher Philippides canceled re-exam, stating I had not made LC 4062 objection. (My Petition for Sanctions is quite lengthy. I'll be calling the Claims Manager as my witness.) So, there is an exception to LC 4061/62 objection - when AME requests re-exam in a Supplemental Report. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9kt6vZauTnyjt1EvNOSRJKuXRhcBOsNDddRnuBQSH0ewXDuGtlGRNhZG94v3A1Rga0SacL9IjeY5a5XfinXYiEgDejwwDhxRvT7feCPsFUNYBxFGgGl1pfbU4Uun_hJSgEuvpSMTyU5FyNXEa3sQaSx66W3mHzXtj6tevFr-ElkVlAULdDnRdv8L8M2V7cuaIYJ-AIAq8zdoDd3DArv38xgbbnE0FCqoGOOjW846Rx3PLngftfrJjyffpfeqXDyh2CVL7BVqIP68Rc9781yeO1A%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh2%2FlsqAHs7k06c9tvkalO-2gIYjrA3SGM9y5yczjkklmu8&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914738565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=DrPbdjDt8EoFoSmzoGijB3eP4KQohLjGrdQahS61D48%3D&reserved=0 ' The Compensation Law Center ] Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver)" < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ' listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > To: "Statewide List Service" < [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ' lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ] > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:09:16 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:pmcworkcomp@aol.com ' Philip Cohen ] [ mailto:pmcworkcomp@aol.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd34BWFStUhwEsCpF0pEZhI7FCu7_hNkT5bZyp5i2gUtx0RIpEd2yFEuUs4eKJd5xYeQgYE96QjbJhyhvfgbjjM9fDtRnL64_z7xLF92dB1fMn4jVlE2asUlS3271EGpy8VNcZ7HyRz3-ZiFj8aHS1eyZ4yNTlJdVSYn_2VANGQeA5zeXIudKIoH7rgDsegTe-MD9johcTsKU7jx03Doxle1PH-nva1nsmcFeI4sCiaY9pOCIWczlz2SbaZfmoM28sdajBQSu-CCdmUfKVk795GGKzdzXcB_noqzBtjsBh9EP7BHovT4NtUaRh7VCLaNKxV3hTKbEoqHbK-nLJYY6Z843ssp1nAow8K9Y3SXrBgTd3JIvpymxJ9GiOEXI0DaGujO_oAOSrCyxm4wkklOgWxG%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh3%2FuTRMd_2e8-VP-2NZ_zu1GNu6T6Xlp104ESNhZYDiMCQ&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914738565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=DDp6jrY%2FP0wq9VRbwRgea5MKXkrfnO2mhFoYPUBBnsU%3D&r eserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd34BWFStUhwEsCpF0pEZhI7FCu7_hNkT5bZyp5i2gUtx0RIpEd2yFEuUs4eKJd5xYdJhrWrGdeYN-Z_wqFNj-CbvMD-wu_VH13YcLgNJOhQrUSpnXjKimuSJ7i2wcv5vRNuJDRHeRfG0rzaRWNauhjDvazBQNMha9iJ4SNR309boQrt3Mumwo9JvQAXv8fZyx6RZZptwk25vGOA8Kqdzw-4OUHnVhTemYFuTfFm0pcdTyAHlQbHoi79dFm7ncVemo1nfX8tviGXg9WgUxtmDfbC95UNU_Ka3GQsin-BND8US2Se0tTpMlcM0pM2_sHyF861_M1IbinkVIL04rGt_iiD8Y0KoYYL5XbvmS37xEdDiY3JBXo__Hiku1BAdSqvfTXVCYQLcprd-bA86az7CgYZHXQztIijC_vYiX59gkDDnZNRG8JR0d1LdYHOI-MsPhM%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh4%2FMUjandSm9wla5Frod5DlN-RDG81Wx1QLdg51K-mutAw&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914748563%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=s8eKojq DcJIEJstmT2heI55VKL3%2FMaWR0O1r%2BhcCHEY%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] Assumes original was legal per 4061/62. There is no provision for a reevaluation without a new objection. No new issue to resolve. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,_gKiZoTSZDKUUJmV-KwHbz8Wchre3hyLutZabJgBFHiaRV7ZUthpSXG675dWzOPfVwtrypp27_4j1SBsgsc9vzKyAnkRCq7k-8ZnMqcPeKgxop8piGBVyQ,,&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,D9lL9cZSs8QcP13QIteZJpxotXre2-Jv6Hj_Z4ZHbQHI7tP5WpEzLDZQqGfdTsKKDBCwkf_KSuM3W48-Q1TEn0Genza-AU5OktZK2y6IrUNw_RI3tO2haw,,&typo=1 ] -----Original Message----- From: Esequiel Solorio (lawnet listserver) < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ' listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > To: Statewide List Service < [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ' lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org ] > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 5:22 pm Subject: Re:[lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:wcsolorio@yahoo.com ' Esequiel Solorio ] [ mailto:wcsolorio@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20%20RE%3A%20How%20do%20you%20stop%20DA%20from%20resetting%20evaluations%20to%20get%20appl%20P%20%26%20S%20sooner%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd00PHNmmdHABCsItY54qKzgw2131Jr2NthXTZAPgo724dcFVWA5P-3z6ugVu6_0ABS23lG2smo2DsEJUjP37L20jOvIiCHbfD9eWb_BTYornrEVkVI1NenvugNecC9fZOx_13JaZnUxZrw5FIEdw-F5IkeG0v7vjFYR-419yMGLlkab4nMgO8mv9Py9K9MA7qvwFDvv8sCa1_z4bAEuZfimClZb9xfQLZV6J6n129861wOUr3wV0Cg86nOK8sJwOmytEUhCZGgizeiDXsDDK_uP9MNmJKu1_cplmqdBSE_S5S2-eYTWps7W03etqHSWdLUVfjW-2QhrWtH5eiLSfGEnGZGYHs_Q-lYWnEvTBKO_m1eu0oTN_CS0m6cshTI1wkjs9FgqIm6sUzHxRoDhtSj9bu0ajWP644DXoaBzFR-Qd1Zi8fFo8ULyfubIA8BwSW-bpRDQAyOojGYRZQVQ-1ISZ-lnO7mCJ_ySYmgCEZ968YE8f-nhV_PP1VvGU1eHiQ83R-VBwgA3rZp6Qdt9YzEvGmXuZVQ4AMM6wuygdix_oacECSSlqJ3kzE1wOVPcAjwkBTyKgPPRmDTFzhzDSHnTlwdCf57VMptEK98bDfjA3JBzTRGUCY5BfT-3R0DQBiT8nOwgaIrXO4MGfqN9GroQrlQeJvyW2474uUHAwmCeMNo8VS2pVb8DEOoUc9qO2f8z2mYkqYKbO5adfF4rsC34BEzgf7dbx4kSEYglin1W3Z5xLuEauuasbLL9eNc7avHcfafhlD4RLzre4K 8YWlEj0mHP9Ab3-JMNJ-04dNoayJplmWhgAFwzR78qaeK4WShnFWX0WU9reDJyxUSs0UMx9lBvnOGBlsBo9hLPT8vUWfhskBwq93dJlshe-FBRS_zBkPA3o0SSUp0L15-X1dTKap_GyX-tqcROB87TIeo3AyslvRssbmF25L6QctiOKHU%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh5%2Fac2jzl1wo7nMSA9cVBOrRWoTuUikRV2uuSzNubAGuRo&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914758558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=aCbTOBlaygKIydm1ACtcwzsXU35kuHnwr0BGSaSfJgc%3D&reserved=0 ' Search ] [ https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furl5646.lawnet.caaa.org%2Fss%2Fc%2FVikIsSr80y0UDv7Yc-amjiog3A0_IiOp-yweZQk7P35uBo4uHlW8Ie7mLlOoDgA9-tQF49aUSuobOYJ_KgnKldTOqO0oVvWCtukbsmebRd00PHNmmdHABCsItY54qKzgw2131Jr2NthXTZAPgo724dcFVWA5P-3z6ugVu6_0ABS23lG2smo2DsEJUjP37L20jOvIiCHbfD9eWb_BTYornrEVkVI1NenvugNecC9fZOx_13JaZnUxZrw5FIEdw-F5IkeG0v7vjFYR-419yMGLlkab4nMgO8mv9Py9K9MA7qvwFDvv8sCa1_z4bAEuZfimClZb9xfQLZV6J6n1298616FqeOlayf8iNEkMB1hTyF7EQF54uSlufFdRhU0qP3vGGrS36-v0c3yzD8cl5OlRGBxLSqAB9Wifc6cze3s9sg5888vDP8SxybUMzeWqOCtR1d612XhCHUZh5jwSoP4pEqlCCBY3mKF0psCHrv1xPMDqWmgX-Ni9fZ9Q8gcRfH7b1SzpB_DK7F9G9EYkhtRdSd-mY7h_gh0CrRCBtjOKdDsqdezW7J8oew65XKNNivEAbs1j67-k5liF0DVV3v7N6FRh5b_jkY1w3iQwST02Idh0KWWlMhCuLo7adzsHHsJ2bLL9kHvHGBUdLgVXpEle778aaMLHvDjnSA71GP9gTbOafLPkzskIduzDrqOQC2_mnkhVqrzgeMpk440tfxuK8183_GKZQ7NHbuCzsQnXImndlJU9oZYcgwjLcl53cuoY9ExVqKSUJzNeTZubhmP6xcmr5R2kXnkS1tUcIO6mcfXSe8CDdAIrKtt632Ny8QhEHhPOffYM70jBJRL-jsCnyMlkDHGyyDXJA8ZcaKm8a3HEyti96gVD4XtMkR T_dI400mrw-_yukCPh1sIuPcAN00naVH5pnM54OPeEVI1-VHKjUnpJSQJUtkhBgx1VuT34h5r-N6o7uGb-eIqEktFy3GMB_ggBjaJGgBc1BT6NBdAM4jlfUAVFTzdStxYFaKxmMFlTdQGasZmUh0u7NNBVBU_pNT36NYOITaDFXTldoiWH5jVh-qzZUeGP2YhDGKuqaFf3WY0vX5cm5FGVE900-N24c3RuBWEpjZcClEbeDpDaaHEq4WUXWRIBmuQdYrNMxmnk-AKfduBs9WKMGDqfLA%2F39b%2FzIm0PEz7RSaR2TL5oOppTw%2Fh6%2F4snFgcex3m0UgXXzkFD4m4dhWqhSfDXmCcKhNuqgCB0&data=04%7C01%7Cdgilliam%40bentleymore.com%7Ca833519940dd4b40f1eb08d8cde6065f%7C558d5971bcef4364b7f3843f1daee3d7%7C0%7C0%7C637485735914758558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=CAfCbh0X0OQF4NSN33e3nr1Lq9XjECe8pduBZ0LlJYw%3D&reserved=0 ' Settings ] Ok Mr. Cohen you got me, i have questions. Are you assuming the original panel was not requested pursuant to a 4061/4062 objection? Why would you need a second such objection for a re-eval as such objection is only needed to start, not restart the panel process. Zeke Modesto -----Original Message----- From: [ mailto:ibrahim@mashneylaw.com ' ibrahim@mashneylaw.com ] Sent: February 09, 2021 5:31:00 PM To: [ mailto:lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com ' lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com ] Subject: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? I had the same issue very recently. I followed Mr. Cohen's advice. I canceled the re-eval and wrote a letter to the DA explaining the lack of renewed 4061/4062 objection and what applicant needs before getting to P&S per the medical reporting. DA took no further action and agreed that applicant needs treatment. Ibrahim Ellahib, Esq. Mashney Law Offices, APC. 335 N Brookhurst St ' Anaheim, CA 92801 T 714.535.5090 ' F 714.535.7263 [ mailto:Ibrahim@MashneyLaw.com ' Ibrahim@MashneyLaw.com ] ' [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.MashneyLaw.com&c=E,1,4g4b6iaUQSXNeDxEo9LzEs-jvMGBCDgXbG0dzTUDxDHOmc7i7RJgMge9pzlBeRv22-smduxer_C2HYiVeEFgoiR-dvg3INls_uvTuO2S&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.MashneyLaw.com&c=E,1,4g4b6iaUQSXNeDxEo9LzEs-jvMGBCDgXbG0dzTUDxDHOmc7i7RJgMge9pzlBeRv22-smduxer_C2HYiVeEFgoiR-dvg3INls_uvTuO2S&typo=1 ] From: Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver) Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:07 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings By law if testing is needed to rule out, not P and S. I have defense constantly trying to set up AME and QME re-evals just to get a P and S report. Most cases, there is no 4061/62 objection, so no right to the reeval and I don't have client go and judges have always agreed with my position. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,3rKLUdD4DF7bDbnR2QGDo5U8KiagjxZQ_JsBZhPOBD4TQHDaPIbsNi0v8D3UlaJ1KPmOj2SFpFEujGfXalJCoy7pM-ZAFLTj7h4gqEb0ctiLlsuFQeKc0eM,&typo=1 ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,3rKLUdD4DF7bDbnR2QGDo5U8KiagjxZQ_JsBZhPOBD4TQHDaPIbsNi0v8D3UlaJ1KPmOj2SFpFEujGfXalJCoy7pM-ZAFLTj7h4gqEb0ctiLlsuFQeKc0eM,&typo=1 ] -----Original Message----- From: Ramin Saedi (lawnet listserver) > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 2:59 pm Subject: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dear mates, How do you stop the defendant from keep setting up QME reevaluations in hopes of getting the applicant P and S sooner when the recommended diagnostic or treatments by the QME has not been done or approved? It has become extremely annoying especially with the ADR cases. Thanks in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
This message thread is about an unidentified WC attorney in NorCal/Sacramento who used to give seminars and had a rating app called 'compcalc.' The discussion is about the status of that app (sold to Matrix copy service, available on Apple Store but not Android). The name 'Montarbo' does not appear anywhere in this message — not in the subject line, body, or any headers. There is no connection to the defense attorney being evaluated.
"Alan Fenton" Date: January 21, 2025 11:48:00 AM Subject: Re: WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Alan Fenton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thanks, as usual, there is always an answer from Lawnet, sometimes not the answer you want, but an answer. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Esequiel Solorio (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 7:41 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re:[lawnet] WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? List: lawnet Sent By: Esequiel Solorio Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings He sold it to Matrix copy service and there is a working copy on the apple store but the android version does not exist. Zeke Modesto -----Original Message----- From: afenton@alanfentonlaw.com Sent: January 19, 2025 11:48:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? His compcalc app does seem to be active anymore. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Heather Siles (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 11:25 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re: [lawnet] WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? List: lawnet Sent By: Heather Siles< mailto:hlsiles@yahoo.com > Reply To Sender< mailto:hlsiles@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20WC%20attorney%20in%20NORCAL%2FSACTO%20that%20used%20to%20give%20seminars%20and%20had%20a%20rating%20app%3F > Reply To List< mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20WC%20attorney%20in%20NORCAL%2FSACTO%20that%20used%20to%20give%20seminars%20and%20had%20a%20rating%20app%3F > Search< http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Settings< http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > Richard Montarbo. He's still around. Heather L. Siles* Law Offices of Siles & Foster, P.C. 2064 Talbert Drive, Ste 100, Chico, CA 95928 P: 530-898-9600 *Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist, CA State Bar Board of Legal Specialization On Friday, January 17, 2025 at 10:43:25 AM PST, Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org >> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Dane Gilliam< mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com > Reply To Sender< mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com?subject=Re%3A%20WC%20attorney%20in%20NORCAL%2FSACTO%20that%20used%20to%20give%20seminars%20and%20had%20a%20rating%20app%3F > Reply To List< mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20WC%20attorney%20in%20NORCAL%2FSACTO%20that%20used%20to%20give%20seminars%20and%20had%20a%20rating%20app%3F > Search< http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Settings< http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > I think that is Rich Montarbo. [cid:suzgmeyIrrrKm3Cn1lNd]< http://www.bentleymore.com/ > DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com<mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com > 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org >> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org >> Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. I think that is Rich Montarbo. [cid:suzgmeyIrrrKm3Cn1lNd]< http://www.bentleymore.com/ > DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com<mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com > 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Alan Fenton (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org >> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org >> Subject: [EXTERNAL]WC attorney in NORCAL/SACTO that used to give seminars and had a rating app? Thanks for all responses af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You.
AI Analysis:
The name 'Montarbo' appears in this message only as part of a reference to the 'Stewart/Montarbo index' — a legal reference publication (CWCLP) used to look up workers' compensation law. This is not a reference to a defense attorney named Montarbo. The message is about a legal question regarding whether the California fee schedule applies to out-of-state treating physicians, and 'Montarbo' is cited as a co-author or editor of a legal index/treatise, not as a practicing defense attorney being discussed or evaluated. There is no information about any defense attorney named Montarbo's litigation style, negotiation tactics, professionalism, or any other characteristic relevant to evaluating them as a defense attorney.
"Dane P. Gilliam" Date: December 02, 2022 1:33:00 PM Subject: Re: Cal Fee Schedule Apply to Out of State PTP? Reply to list Reply to sender Print I think the confusion on this issue—at least for me—was how this was written or unilaterally extended in the Stewart/Montarbo index. Per the 2022 edition: Out of state treatment: fee schedule from California is not applicable. CWCLP section 9:11 citing Arroyo ordering payment to Mexican physician {the schedule in CCR 9792.5(a)(3) says it applies to physicians as defined by LC 3209.3 which defines them as doctors licensed by CA Law. Most out-of-state doctors are not licensed, therefore the CA Fee Schedule does not apply to them. Instead, their own state laws govern their bills. Usual and customary and of course, “reasonableness” will be the test.} I am curious if anyone has successfully argued this issue. Best, DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Robert Mack (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 9:52 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] Cal Fee Schedule Apply to Out of State PTP? List: lawnet Sent By: Robert Mack Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I don't think that is what that case says. The holding of that case is, "We therefore hold the definition of physician in Labor Code section 3209.3 does not exclude a physician licensed to practice in another country, and where medical treatment and reports are procured from [***17] such a physician in accordance with Labor Code section 4600 , the employer is responsible for the reasonable expense of such treatment and medical-legal costs. In this case, the physicians provided by Arroyo's employer were unable to help him. On his own he sought and obtained helpful medical treatment where he resided in Tijuana. Fund did not establish in proceedings before the Board that the treatment was unreasonably expensive or that the medical reports were not "reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred . . . to prove a contested claim." ( Lab. Code, § 4600 .)" The medical fee schedule is presumptively reasonable. I don't see where the case says that the fee schedule doesn't apply to out-of-state or out-of-country physicians. Instead, they just have to pay reasonable expenses. If the out of state physicians is charging more than the fee schedule, they will argue that is not a reasonable expense. Robert G. Mack, Esq. Attorney KURLANDER, BURTON, & MACK 100 BUSH STREET, SUITE 2150 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 (415) 392-8920 ex: 1005 (415) 392-8921 Fax rmack@kurlanderburtonlaw.com www.kbmlawsf.com The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, and any use or disclosure of the information contained herein, is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by email or telephone and permanently delete this email from your system From: Bonnie Binder-Wilson (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 9:39 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Cal Fee Schedule Apply to Out of State PTP? List: lawnet Sent By: Bonnie Binder-Wilson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Please note that the California fee schedule is not applicable to out-of-state physicians. Juan Pablo Arroyo v SCIF (1997) 69 CA3d. 884; 138 Cal. Rptr. 509, 42 CCC 394 . Bonnie Binder Wilson, Esq. Wilson & Wisler, LLP Attorneys at Law 21 Maple Street Salinas, California 93901 Telephone: (831) 269-3787 Facsimile: (831) 269-3783 www.doubleulaw.com *************** PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL **************** THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION IS A COMMUNICATION FROM THE LAW FIRM OF WILSON & WISLER, LLP. THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND IS CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR WILSON & WISLER, LLP. THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY THAT IS THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. From: Maurice L. Abarr (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 5:54 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Cal Fee Schedule Apply to Out of State PTP? List: lawnet Sent By: Maurice L. Abarr Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a near paraplegic who is housed in a facility in Colorado. Excess carrier now playing hard ball after 7 years of paying the bills and refusing to now pay or authorize. There has never been a PTP designated because of the lax arrangement with the employer (self retention to 5M), now into excess, where they simply authorized and paid the bills. I am now having to locate a Colorado doctor who will serve as PTP so that RFAs and supportive medical reporting can be generated. QUESTION: Is the out of state PTP limited to California Official Fee Schedule? Any help is appreciated. -- MAURICE L. ABARR - LAWYER, INC. (714) 543-8416 Tel (714) 641-4809 Fax Mailing Address: P.O. Box 11484, Santa Ana, CA 92711 Physical Address by Appointment Only : 2700 N. Main St., Suite 602, Santa Ana, CA 92705 *Accredited Attorney for Veterans Appealing VA Decisions *Certified Specialist in Workers' Compensation by Board of Legal Specialization, State Bar of California www.abarrlaw.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS E-MAIL IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL E-MAIL MESSAGE. THANK YOU.
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention Montarbo at all. The subject line is about stopping a DA from resetting evaluations to get applicant P&S sooner, and the visible content is only a forwarded/quoted email header from a listserver. There is no reference to Montarbo in the subject line, body, or any visible portion of the message.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 9:39 PM ron ehrman (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote:
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention Montarbo at all. It is an email from Marjory Harris sent from her iPhone, with a subject line referencing a PDF attachment about 'Permanent Disability Rebuttal Post Dahl and Batten' — which appears to be a legal document related to different parties (Dahl and Batten). The attorney name 'Montarbo' does not appear anywhere in the subject line, body, or any other part of this message. There is no connection to Montarbo.
Marjory Harris Date: April 19, 2019 7:54:00 PM Subject: 04_Permanent_Disability_Rebuttal_Post_Dahl_and_Batten.pdf Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: 04_permanent_disability_rebuttal_post_dahl_and_batten.pdf (4728 K) attachedfile.txt (1 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Marjory Harris Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Marjory Harris Sent from my iPhone
AI Analysis:
This message mentions 'Montarbo Law' only in reference to a software application called CompCalc that they developed. The message is about a calculation app for workers' compensation, not about Montarbo as a defense attorney. There is no information about Montarbo's litigation style, negotiation tactics, professionalism, responsiveness, settlements, or any direct dealings with Montarbo as an opposing counsel. The name appears coincidentally in the context of a software product discussion, not in a way that would help evaluate how easy or difficult Montarbo is to deal with as a defense attorney.
"Timothy J. Egan" Date: March 04, 2019 4:25:00 PM Subject: Re: app for calculating COLA/SAWW on Td for 100% Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Timothy J. Egan Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mark Montarbo Law has an app called CompCalc that they came out with a few years ago. It has a lot of good features. I have the 2018 version. Cost around $5.00 for a year. Recently, Gemini (our copy service buddies) came out with what they call GeminiCalc which is their version of CompCalc. Same exact app. Gemini Calc was free. Learned about it at the CAAA convention. I use it regularly. Easy to use. Tim Egan --- Timothy J. Egan, Attorney At Law Certified Specialist in Workers' Compensation Law 30 Fifth Street, Suite 100 Petaluma, CA 94952 Tele: (707) 789-9018 Fax (707) 789-9104 Confidentiality Notice - This message is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, subject to attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine and other privileges. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the original message at once. Please be advised this email shall not be deemed evidence of the formation or existence of any attorney-client relationship between the recipient and this office, notwithstanding any legal opinions or legal counsel contained herein. This email shall not have the effect of establishing an attorney-client relationship unless the content expressly says otherwise. Further, nothing in this communication shall be deemed legal tax advice in any manner whatsoever. On 03/01/2019 11:55, Mark Weinberger (lawnet listserver) wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Mark Weinberger Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, I have an SIF claim in which the doctor in the industrial claim wrote a very confusing apportionment opinion. there doesn't seem to be a dispute that my client is 100% disabled.I know that I can clean it up to my client's advantage by hiring an evaluator in the SIF claim. However, SIF wants me to make a compromise and release and in order to avoid delays and get a lump sum of money my client might prefer a compromise and release. I'm trying to figure out the potential effect of the COLA/SAWW on the value of the PTD payments which would start in 2015 in order to come up with the compromise and release figure. Can anyone direct me to a website or an app which will help me do those calculations? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Mark
AI Analysis:
The name 'Montarbo' appears only in passing as part of a legal index reference ('Stewart/Montarbo index'), which is a citation to a legal resource or case index, not a reference to a defense attorney named Montarbo. The message is about a legal discussion regarding petition for decreased benefits, credit for PD across different dates of injury, and a SCIF case. There is no discussion of a defense attorney named Montarbo, no experiences dealing with them, no opinions about their tactics or professionalism, and no information that would be useful for evaluating them as a defense attorney.
Keith Gilmetti Date: May 14, 2018 3:23:00 PM Subject: Re: PETITION FOR DECREASED BENEFITS-reduce prior Stip & Award Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: keith gilmetti Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I had a scif case where they paid PD, but subsequently the PD got split (Bensonized) and scif tried to take credit for PD on one case to a different date of injury. WCJ said yes, Board said no. DCA said no. Case is listed in Stewart/montarbo index. Dunehew. Keith B. Gilmetti Leviton Diaz & Ginocchio Bakersfield On May 14, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Veralin Nnaoji (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Veralin Nnaoji Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mus t have missed that one. Thanks, Jim, for calling my attention to it. Will go back and check it out! Have a great week! Law Offices of Veralin Nnaoji 18107 Sherman Way, #105 Reseda, CA 91335 Tel: 818-345-1436 Fax: 818-345-1466 -----Original Message----- From: James Harvey (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Mon, May 14, 2018 11:53 am Subject: Re: [lawnet] PETITION FOR DECREASED BENEFITS-reduce prior Stip & Award List: lawnet Sent By: James Harvey Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Veralin There was discussion on lawnet a few days ago citing case law that Def cannot get credit between different injuries. Jim Harvey On 5/11/18 11:13 AM, Veralin Nnaoji (lawnet listserver) wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Veralin Nnaoji Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you Bruce, Tim and Ron for your inputs! Bruce, I think they are strategizing on how they can take credit for Applicant's current PD Award for the new claim. Like you rightly mentioned, we don't mind the PD reduction in light of 4664, but we do not want them to have any credit rights to current or future PD Awards. As for the issue of Stat raised by Tim, they filed way after 5 years of date of first injury and the Stipulated Award, but within 5 years of the second injury. Wondering if there is a case law dealing specifically with Statute of Limitation in this type of issue. Law Offices of Veralin Nnaoji 18107 Sherman Way, #105 Reseda, CA 91335 Tel: 818-345-1436 Fax: 818-345-1466 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Gelber (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thu, May 10, 2018 6:10 pm Subject: Re: [lawnet] PETITION FOR DECREASED BENEFITS-reduce prior Stip & Award List: lawnet Sent By: Bruce Gelber Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Veralin, why oppose? If PD already paid on 2012 Award, what is def's strategy? It just limits their 4664 PD offset. Years ago we joked about filing our own Pet/Reduce so as to limit 4664 offset. Don't know what became of that strategy? Sent from my iPhone On May 10, 2018, at 5:49 PM, Veralin Nnaoji (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Veralin Nnaoji Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Friends, We have a case that settled by Stip and Award in 2012. IW is still working for same Employer. We re-opened for "New and Further", as well as filed a new claim for a new injury which was admitted. PQME found 29% PD on the New Claim which involved different body parts. But, in the same report, (according to rating of the report), PQME reduced prior PD 44% Award by 11%. D efendants filed "Petition For Decreased Benefit," seeking an order reducing prior 'Stipulation with Request for Award' by 11%. Does anyone have a brief opposing such Petition, they can share? As confirmed by my search of the archive on the issue, most of Defenses' 'Petition to Reduce Benefits typically dealt with claimed TD over-payments, Credit for Medical costs from claimed PD overpayments etc. But, I did not seem to find any on this particular issue. And this is the first time defense filed Petition to reduce prior PD Award on my case. I understand that it is within the discretion of the Judge to reduce any prior Award. But, I was wondering what your experience has been. As usual, thank you for your invaluable opinion and help. Law Offices of Veralin Nnaoji 18107 Sherman Way, #105 Reseda, CA 91335 Tel: 818-345-1436 Fax: 818-345-1466
AI Analysis:
The name 'Montarbo' appears in this message only as part of 'The Montarbo/Stewart index,' which is a legal reference index or citation tool used to locate panel decisions. This is not a reference to a defense attorney named Montarbo. The message is about a legal question regarding untimely PQME reports, objections, and admissibility under Labor Code and regulations. The mention of 'Montarbo' is coincidental to the subject matter and does not provide any information about a defense attorney's negotiating style, professionalism, tactics, or any other characteristic relevant to evaluating how easy or difficult they are to deal with.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: March 10, 2017 11:51:00 AM Subject: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I found my notes (I do not have the Plesha case however): Clearly it is no more appropriate to timely object and then withdraw the objection after the report issues than it is to wait til the report comes and only object if the report is adverse. Once the timely objection is made to an untimely report the report is inadmissible and a new panel is required (Labor Code section 139.2(j), 4628(e) Reg 38(b) The Montarbo/Stewart index cites a panel decision Plesha 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379 which ruled that where the objection occurs the WCJ had no discretion to admit the untimely report following the objection. The Code and regs only require one party to object. Thus you were in fact prejudiced by defendant's unscrupulous actions. You were entitled to rely upon the defendant's objection which invalidated the report before it issued. This is the opposite side of the same issue as waiting for the report to issue and then objecting only if it is adverse. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Guy Medford (lawnet listserver)" <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:43:40 AM Subject: [lawnet] looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) List: lawnet Sent By: Guy Medford Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello all, below is an older string last answered by Hollie talking about a case that I never saw identified.... Anybody know the name and citation of that case? Thank you in advance. Guy "There is a case, and I have heard WCJs say the same - where a party objects to a PQME before the report issues and then the untimely PQME is a favorable report, the party cannot reverse the objection" (Hollie) Guy A. Medford Esq., Attorney at Law Law Offices of Guy Allen Medford 306 East Main Street suite 304 Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 227-8110 fax (209) 227-8062 www.guymedford.com _____________Historical string_____________ There is a case, and I have heard WCJs say the same - where a party objects to a PQME before the report issues and then the untimely PQME is a favorable report, the party cannot reverse the objection and agree with that report. So, the party objecting had better be prepared to abandon that PQME report even if it is fabulous and the opposing party will never let the objecting party forget what a stupid stunt that was. I addition, it is my experience that a letter informing the PQME that the PQME report is untimely and the PQME will not get paid for an untimely report, this letter makes some PQMEs stop preparing the report so no report ever goes out. So the parties go and get a Replacement Panel without knowing which side the report favored. I would think that a strategy of objecting to the timeliness of every PQME report for the shear hell of it would loose you some good, or at least middle of the road, reports and delay the resolution of the claim by years. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Edward F. Figaredo (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:40:50 AM Subject: RE: [lawnet] PQME Objection-Two Questions List: lawnet Sent By: Edward F. Figaredo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you. I understand that. The issue is can defatty object prematurely, as he clearly does if he does not wait until the 35th day to lodge an objection. In other words, can I object to every single PQME on the third day that he saw my client, or must I wait 35 days to object in order for my objhection to be valid? E.Figaredo El Monte. From: A. Keith Lesar (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 1:53 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] PQME Objection-Two Questions List: lawnet Sent By: A. Keith Lesar Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Five day extension rule does not apply. Doctor is not being mailed something that requires a response within 30 days, he/she is sending something that is to be sent within 30 days of the date of examination. Keith Lesar Aptos On 10/12/2016 1:44 PM, Edward F. Figaredo (lawnet listserver) wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Edward F. Figaredo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Under Regulation 38(a) the PQME must issue an initial report within 30 days of examination. I presume 5 days are added if report is mailed per 10507. If the report is not issued timely a party can object and request a new panel. Question is, if a party makes an objection prematurely on the 30th day, or even on the 34th day does it annul the objection? Even if the report is not issued say 10-20 days later? Authority? ___________________________________ Edward F. Figaredo, Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES EDWARD F. FIGAREDO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10507 Valley Boulevard, Ste 510 El Monte, California 91731-9998 (626)444-9542
AI Analysis:
The name 'Montarbo' appears only as part of a legal index reference ('Stewart/Montarbo index'), which is a citation to a legal resource or case index, not a reference to a defense attorney named Montarbo. The message does not discuss any defense attorney named Montarbo, their litigation style, negotiation tactics, or professional conduct. The mention is purely coincidental in the context of citing a legal reference, and provides no useful information for evaluating a defense attorney named Montarbo.
"Dane P. Gilliam" Date: February 10, 2021 11:22:00 AM Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Dane Gilliam Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings There is a brief discussion on this issue in the Stewart/Montarbo index: It says there is no need for the parties to repeat “AME Dance” of 4061/4062. Batavia, Inc. (Alcantar) 62 CCC 1134. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:05 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I petitioned for sanctions against a DA who cancelled a Psychiatric AME re-exam when the AME, in response to my letter requesting a Supplemental Report, responded that he would need a Psychiatric AME re-exam. No LC 4061/4062 required. The facts were that,. while IW was not represented, the PTP, who was a Ph.D., NOT an M.D., request a Psychiatric evaluation to determine what psyche medications the IW should receive (obviously, the Ph.D. could not prescribe medications). CE ignored this RFA. I became IW's atty. DA and I agreed to Psychiatric AME,\who originally agreed with the PTP P&S/MMI date becasue DA withheld the RFA for Psychiatric evaluation, stating that he was not required to tell me what was in his Medical Index to the AME - that sorry SOB was sooooo ignorant of WC rules and Regs that he thought App's Atty was not entitled ro know what medical records he was sending to AME. [Anyone want to know who this ignorant DA is? Sac MulFil Christopher Philippides. He also said that MulFil had a new rule, DAs were only allowed to correspond by phone and USPS, MulFil DAs would not longer accept emails or faxes. That instruction was by email from his secretary. Of course, this was an out-and-out lie.] I set re-exam with Psychiatric AME, as Psychiatric AME requested. Christopher Philippides canceled re-exam, stating I had not made LC 4062 objection. (My Petition for Sanctions is quite lengthy. I'll be calling the Claims Manager as my witness.) So, there is an exception to LC 4061/62 objection - when AME requests re-exam in a Supplemental Report. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver)" < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > To: "Statewide List Service" < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:09:16 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Assumes original was legal per 4061/62. There is no provision for a reevaluation without a new objection. No new issue to resolve. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 www.sandiego-injurylawyer.com -----Original Message----- From: Esequiel Solorio (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 5:22 pm Subject: Re:[lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Esequiel Solorio Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Ok Mr. Cohen you got me, i have questions. Are you assuming the original panel was not requested pursuant to a 4061/4062 objection? Why would you need a second such objection for a re-eval as such objection is only needed to start, not restart the panel process. Zeke Modesto -----Original Message----- From: ibrahim@mashneylaw.com Sent: February 09, 2021 5:31:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? I had the same issue very recently. I followed Mr. Cohen's advice. I canceled the re-eval and wrote a letter to the DA explaining the lack of renewed 4061/4062 objection and what applicant needs before getting to P&S per the medical reporting. DA took no further action and agreed that applicant needs treatment. Ibrahim Ellahib, Esq. Mashney Law Offices, APC. 335 N Brookhurst St ' Anaheim, CA 92801 T 714.535.5090 ' F 714.535.7263 Ibrahim@MashneyLaw.com ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.MashneyLaw.com&c=E,1,4g4b6iaUQSXNeDxEo9LzEs-jvMGBCDgXbG0dzTUDxDHOmc7i7RJgMge9pzlBeRv22-smduxer_C2HYiVeEFgoiR-dvg3INls_uvTuO2S&typo=1 From: Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver) Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:07 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings By law if testing is needed to rule out, not P and S. I have defense constantly trying to set up AME and QME re-evals just to get a P and S report. Most cases, there is no 4061/62 objection, so no right to the reeval and I don't have client go and judges have always agreed with my position. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,3rKLUdD4DF7bDbnR2QGDo5U8KiagjxZQ_JsBZhPOBD4TQHDaPIbsNi0v8D3UlaJ1KPmOj2SFpFEujGfXalJCoy7pM-ZAFLTj7h4gqEb0ctiLlsuFQeKc0eM,&typo=1 -----Original Message----- From: Ramin Saedi (lawnet listserver) > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 2:59 pm Subject: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dear mates, How do you stop the defendant from keep setting up QME reevaluations in hopes of getting the applicant P and S sooner when the recommended diagnostic or treatments by the QME has not been done or approved? It has become extremely annoying especially with the ADR cases. Thanks in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
The name 'Montarbo' appears in the message body, but only as a co-author/editor of a legal reference publication ('WORKERS' COMPENSATION INDEX (now by Montarbo and Stewart)'). This is a citation to a legal resource, not a reference to Montarbo as a defense attorney being dealt with. The message is about strategies for handling a defense vocational expert's deposition fee dispute, and Montarbo is referenced purely as a legal publication author. There is no information about Montarbo's litigation style, negotiation behavior, professionalism, or any direct dealings with Montarbo as an attorney.
"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: March 11, 2018 4:57:00 PM Subject: Re: RE: Defense Vocational Expert Fee for Depo Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think you have a lot of room to wreak havoc here. First, get the bill for the actual report. I do not see why the depo fee should be any higher than the fee actually paid by the adjuster and you can damn well bet the adjuster did not pay $450 an hour. The rules concerning a depo fee seem to require that an "estimated fee" be paid in advance and any balance owed after the deposition paid within five days (see WORKERS' COMPENSATION INDEX (now by Montarbo and Stewart) under the heading "witness costs." Citing Government code sections. Pay your "estimated fee", do your Motion to Attend the and Motion to Produce. Assumedly another refusal will be made. Do your Motion to Exclude. Further, if the deposition does actually go forth then do a Petition for Costs pursuant to LC section 5811. -----Original Message----- From: MarjoryHarrisLaw@gmail.com Sent: March 10, 2018 4:30:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: RE: Defense Vocational Expert Fee for Depo
AI Analysis:
The name 'Montarbo' appears in the message body, but in reference to the 'Montarbo/Stewart index' — which appears to be a legal reference index or citation tool, not a defense attorney named Montarbo. The message is about QME report timeliness, objections, and panel decisions under 8 CCR 38. There is no discussion of a defense attorney named Montarbo, their negotiation style, professionalism, litigation tactics, or any personal dealings with them. The reference is coincidental and contextually unrelated to evaluating a defense attorney named Montarbo.
Jason Wells Date: March 13, 2017 11:38:00 AM Subject: Re: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Jason Wells Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings On this issue...the cases lately (mostly panel decisions for full disclosure) have been trending in the direction of NOT throwing out the report for timeliness (on a technicality) and the Board has been looking at all of the facts. For instance, if your QME has submitted multiple reports and/or performed multiple evaluations, they don't want to abandon the QME. With the latest decisions lately, it seems that ex parte communication is the only sure-fire way that they want to throw out a report. I am sure this varies from judge to judge, but with SB 863 and it's intent to reduce QME costs, starting over again seems heavily disfavored by the Board and I would imagine it would be supported by the DCAs based on the intent of the law. Jason Wells Humboldt County -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: March 10, 2017 11:51:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) I found my notes (I do not have the Plesha case however): Clearly it is no more appropriate to timely object and then withdraw the objection after the report issues than it is to wait til the report comes and only object if the report is adverse. Once the timely objection is made to an untimely report the report is inadmissible and a new panel is required (Labor Code section 139.2(j), 4628(e) Reg 38(b) The Montarbo/Stewart index cites a panel decision Plesha 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379 which ruled that where the objection occurs the WCJ had no discretion to admit the untimely report following the objection. The Code and regs only require one party to object. Thus you were in fact prejudiced by defendant's unscrupulous actions. You were entitled to rely upon the defendant's objection which invalidated the report before it issued. This is the opposite side of the same issue as waiting for the report to issue and then objecting only if it is adverse. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Guy Medford (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:43:40 AM Subject: [lawnet] looking for case/citation re 8CCR38, 31.5(a)(13) List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:guymedford@yahoo.com ' Guy Medford ] [ mailto:guymedford@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20looking%20for%20case%2Fcitation%20re%208CCR38%2C%2031.5%28a%29%2813%29 ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20looking%20for%20case%2Fcitation%20re%208CCR38%2C%2031.5%28a%29%2813%29 ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Hello all, below is an older string last answered by Hollie talking about a case that I never saw identified.... Anybody know the name and citation of that case? Thank you in advance. Guy "There is a case, and I have heard WCJs say the same - where a party objects to a PQME before the report issues and then the untimely PQME is a favorable report, the party cannot reverse the objection" (Hollie) Guy A. Medford Esq., Attorney at Law Law Offices of Guy Allen Medford 306 East Main Street suite 304 Stockton, CA 95202 (209) 227-8110 fax (209) 227-8062 www.guymedford.com _____________Historical string_____________ There is a case, and I have heard WCJs say the same - where a party objects to a PQME before the report issues and then the untimely PQME is a favorable report, the party cannot reverse the objection and agree with that report. So, the party objecting had better be prepared to abandon that PQME report even if it is fabulous and the opposing party will never let the objecting party forget what a stupid stunt that was. I addition, it is my experience that a letter informing the PQME that the PQME report is untimely and the PQME will not get paid for an untimely report, this letter makes some PQMEs stop preparing the report so no report ever goes out. So the parties go and get a Replacement Panel without knowing which side the report favored. I would think that a strategy of objecting to the timeliness of every PQME report for the shear hell of it would loose you some good, or at least middle of the road, reports and delay the resolution of the claim by years. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Edward F. Figaredo (lawnet listserver)" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:40:50 AM Subject: RE: [lawnet] PQME Objection-Two Questions List: lawnet Sent By: Edward F. Figaredo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you. I understand that. The issue is can defatty object prematurely, as he clearly does if he does not wait until the 35th day to lodge an objection. In other words, can I object to every single PQME on the third day that he saw my client, or must I wait 35 days to object in order for my objhection to be valid? E.Figaredo El Monte. From: A. Keith Lesar (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 1:53 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] PQME Objection-Two Questions List: lawnet Sent By: A. Keith Lesar Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Five day extension rule does not apply. Doctor is not being mailed something that requires a response within 30 days, he/she is sending something that is to be sent within 30 days of the date of examination. Keith Lesar Aptos On 10/12/2016 1:44 PM, Edward F. Figaredo (lawnet listserver) wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Edward F. Figaredo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Under Regulation 38(a) the PQME must issue an initial report within 30 days of examination. I presume 5 days are added if report is mailed per 10507. If the report is not issued timely a party can object and request a new panel. Question is, if a party makes an objection prematurely on the 30th day, or even on the 34th day does it annul the objection? Even if the report is not issued say 10-20 days later? Authority? ___________________________________ Edward F. Figaredo, Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES EDWARD F. FIGAREDO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10507 Valley Boulevard, Ste 510 El Monte, California 91731-9998 (626)444-9542
AI Analysis:
The name 'Montarbo' appears in this message only as part of a reference to a legal index ('Stewart/Montarbo index'), which appears to be a published legal reference resource or case index used by practitioners. This is not a reference to a defense attorney named Montarbo. The message is about procedural questions regarding AME evaluations and P&S determinations, and Montarbo is cited as a co-author or contributor to a legal index, not as a defense attorney being evaluated. There is no information about a defense attorney named Montarbo's negotiating style, professionalism, tactics, or any other characteristic relevant to evaluating them as a defense attorney.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: February 10, 2021 11:36:00 AM Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I don't know if it matters, but this case was on pre-1/1/05 date of injury. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver)" <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:22:16 AM Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Dane Gilliam Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings There is a brief discussion on this issue in the Stewart/Montarbo index: It says there is no need for the parties to repeat “AME Dance” of 4061/4062. Batavia, Inc. (Alcantar) 62 CCC 1134. DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:05 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I petitioned for sanctions against a DA who cancelled a Psychiatric AME re-exam when the AME, in response to my letter requesting a Supplemental Report, responded that he would need a Psychiatric AME re-exam. No LC 4061/4062 required. The facts were that,. while IW was not represented, the PTP, who was a Ph.D., NOT an M.D., request a Psychiatric evaluation to determine what psyche medications the IW should receive (obviously, the Ph.D. could not prescribe medications). CE ignored this RFA. I became IW's atty. DA and I agreed to Psychiatric AME,\who originally agreed with the PTP P&S/MMI date becasue DA withheld the RFA for Psychiatric evaluation, stating that he was not required to tell me what was in his Medical Index to the AME - that sorry SOB was sooooo ignorant of WC rules and Regs that he thought App's Atty was not entitled ro know what medical records he was sending to AME. [Anyone want to know who this ignorant DA is? Sac MulFil Christopher Philippides. He also said that MulFil had a new rule, DAs were only allowed to correspond by phone and USPS, MulFil DAs would not longer accept emails or faxes. That instruction was by email from his secretary. Of course, this was an out-and-out lie.] I set re-exam with Psychiatric AME, as Psychiatric AME requested. Christopher Philippides canceled re-exam, stating I had not made LC 4062 objection. (My Petition for Sanctions is quite lengthy. I'll be calling the Claims Manager as my witness.) So, there is an exception to LC 4061/62 objection - when AME requests re-exam in a Supplemental Report. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver)" < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > To: "Statewide List Service" < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:09:16 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Assumes original was legal per 4061/62. There is no provision for a reevaluation without a new objection. No new issue to resolve. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 www.sandiego-injurylawyer.com -----Original Message----- From: Esequiel Solorio (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 5:22 pm Subject: Re:[lawnet] RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Esequiel Solorio Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Ok Mr. Cohen you got me, i have questions. Are you assuming the original panel was not requested pursuant to a 4061/4062 objection? Why would you need a second such objection for a re-eval as such objection is only needed to start, not restart the panel process. Zeke Modesto -----Original Message----- From: ibrahim@mashneylaw.com Sent: February 09, 2021 5:31:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: RE: How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? I had the same issue very recently. I followed Mr. Cohen's advice. I canceled the re-eval and wrote a letter to the DA explaining the lack of renewed 4061/4062 objection and what applicant needs before getting to P&S per the medical reporting. DA took no further action and agreed that applicant needs treatment. Ibrahim Ellahib, Esq. Mashney Law Offices, APC. 335 N Brookhurst St ' Anaheim, CA 92801 T 714.535.5090 ' F 714.535.7263 Ibrahim@MashneyLaw.com ' https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.MashneyLaw.com&c=E,1,4g4b6iaUQSXNeDxEo9LzEs-jvMGBCDgXbG0dzTUDxDHOmc7i7RJgMge9pzlBeRv22-smduxer_C2HYiVeEFgoiR-dvg3INls_uvTuO2S&typo=1 From: Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver) Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:07 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings By law if testing is needed to rule out, not P and S. I have defense constantly trying to set up AME and QME re-evals just to get a P and S report. Most cases, there is no 4061/62 objection, so no right to the reeval and I don't have client go and judges have always agreed with my position. Philip M. Cohen Workers Compensation Specialist Law Offices of Philip M. Cohen, APC 1550 Hotel Circle N, Ste. 170 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 297-5100 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sandiego-injurylawyer.com&c=E,1,3rKLUdD4DF7bDbnR2QGDo5U8KiagjxZQ_JsBZhPOBD4TQHDaPIbsNi0v8D3UlaJ1KPmOj2SFpFEujGfXalJCoy7pM-ZAFLTj7h4gqEb0ctiLlsuFQeKc0eM,&typo=1 -----Original Message----- From: Ramin Saedi (lawnet listserver) > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 2:59 pm Subject: [lawnet] How do you stop DA from resetting evaluations to get appl P & S sooner? List: lawnet Sent By: Ramin Saedi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dear mates, How do you stop the defendant from keep setting up QME reevaluations in hopes of getting the applicant P and S sooner when the recommended diagnostic or treatments by the QME has not been done or approved? It has become extremely annoying especially with the ADR cases. Thanks in advance. Ramin Saedi Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention 'Montarbo' anywhere in the subject line, body, or visible content. The subject line is about DAs billing hours on a PD F&A matter, and the message appears to be a listserv discussion about billing practices. There is no reference to the defense attorney 'Montarbo' in any capacity — not by name, not in context, and not in the headers. The attorney name does not appear coincidentally or otherwise in this message.
From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:50:28 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention 'Montarbo' anywhere — not in the subject line, body, or any other part of the message. The message discusses billing hours on a PD F&A case, AMTrust, and a DA's billing practices, but contains no reference to the defense attorney being evaluated. The name 'Montarbo' is entirely absent from this message.
Thanks for the explanation. Circumstances are different if the DA is knowledgeable, as opposed to a new attorney who bills excessively because he/she is learning. I now have a case with AMTrust. I will let you know if there is a pattern of abuse. Cases can still be referred to the audit unit. Let's hope you get paid more thanb a fraction of what is due.
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention 'Montarbo' anywhere in the subject line, body, or headers. The subject line discusses DA billing hours on a PD F&A (Fee and Allocation) matter, and the message appears to be a listserv thread about billing practices. There is no reference to the defense attorney named Montarbo in any part of the message content provided. The message is not relevant for evaluating Montarbo.
From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:42:21 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] I just got an affidavit that DAs billed 137.2 hours on a 25% PD F&A
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention Montarbo at all. It is a thread about 'Removal or Recon?' on the lawnet listserv, involving attorneys Nooshin Dalili, Jeffrey Dittrich, and a reference to someone named 'Plesha.' The subject line and message content contain no reference to Montarbo, and the discussion appears to be about a procedural workers' comp/personal injury question unrelated to evaluating Montarbo.
Nooshin Dalili Date: December 09, 2015 4:31:00 PM Subject: Re: RE: Removal or Recon? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Nooshin Dalili Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you all for your responses. Noohshin -----Original Message----- From: jcdittrich@injuryattny.com Sent: December 09, 2015 3:26:09 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: RE: Removal or Recon? Here is Plesha. Jeffrey Dittrich, Esq. Worker's Comp./Personal Injury Salinas/San Jose (831)442-7232 - Office (831)594-6477 - Cell jcdittrich@injuryattny.com From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:40 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search<<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Settings<<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > Could somebody please post the Plesha decision mentioned by Mr. Capurro - 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379? M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 ________________________________ From:Jeffrey C. Dittrich (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:20 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List:lawnet Sent By: Jeffrey C. Dittrich Reply To Sender Reply To List Search<<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Settings<<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > Mr. Capurro is correct in his law. I cannot picture a Salinas judge making such an error. However, I still hold that filing for a removal is a waste of time unless you use it to get the judge to rethink the decision when you cite Plesha panel decision. However, if the Board wants to split hairs, they could rule that up to this point there is no harm which will only come if the trial judge admits the QME report in question. You will get a second bite from the apple when it goes to trial. Talk to the defense attorney and see if you can make that attorney since the reasonableness of your position. Jeffrey Dittrich, Esq. Worker's Comp./Personal Injury Salinas/San Jose (831)442-7232 - Office (831)594-6477 - Cell jcdittrich@injuryattny.com From: Joseph V. Capurro (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:51 AM To: Statewide List Service > Subject: RE: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Joseph V. Capurro Reply To Sender Reply To List Search<<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Settings<<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > It is properly a Petition for Removal. I disagree with other comments posted that this is a waste of time. Clearly it is no more appropriate to timely object and then withdraw the objection after the report issues than it is to wait til the report comes and only object if the report is adverse. Once the timely objection is made to an untimely report the report is inadmissible and a new panel is required (Labor Code section 139.2(j), 4628(e) Reg 38(b) The Montarbo/Stewart index cites a panel decision Plesha 2010 Cal Wrk Comp PR Lexis 379 which ruled that where the objection occurs the WCJ had no discretion to admit the untimely report following the objection. The Code and regs only require one party to object. Thus you were in fact prejudiced by defendant's unscrupulous actions. You were entitled to rely upon the defendant's objection which invalidated the report befrore it issued. This is the opposite side of the same issue as waiting for the report to issue and then objecting only if it is adverse. Joe Capurro From: Nooshin Dalili (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:33 AM To: Statewide List Service > Subject: [lawnet] Removal or Recon? List: lawnet Sent By: Nooshin Dalili Reply To Sender Reply To List Search<<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Settings<<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > I have a case in which DA objected to late PQME report. PQME issued a favorable report for Defs. Defs withdrew their objection and accepted the late report. I then requested a new panel based on Da's objection to late report and filed a Petition to strike late PQME report and requested an order for new Pqme list based on def's objection. WCJ denied my petition for a new PQME list (because I had not objected to late report). I would like to challenge the WCJ's ruling denying my petition. Do I file a removal or recon? I think it would be a removal. What do you think? Nooshin Dalili San Jose _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is completely empty — no sender, no subject line, and no body content. There is no mention of Montarbo or any other attorney, no discussion of any legal matter, and no information of any kind that could be used to evaluate this attorney. This message contains nothing relevant.
AI Analysis:
The message is completely empty — no sender, no subject line, and no body content. There is no mention of Montarbo or any other attorney, no discussion of experiences, negotiations, or any other evaluable information. There is nothing to assess for relevance.