None

"Nooshin Dalili" Date: February 26, 2026 6:26:00 PM Subject: Re: Need articles or literature on South Coast Framing/ Causation standard Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Nooshin Dalili Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Wow! Thank you all so much for the excellent materials and thoughtful input, this has been very helpful. I do have a follow-up question: have any of you received pushback from defense when your QME cover letter goes into such detailed discussion of the holding in South Coast Framing and its causation standard? In at least one deposition, DA continuously objected, arguing that the case applies only to death claims and does not fully reject a "material contributing factor" analysis. I wonder if you have encountered similar arguments? To answer my own question, I guess I can just send the cover letter to the QME since it's a request for supplemental and not serve it on the DA ahead of time to avoid the potential push back:) Thank you again. Nooshin -----Original Message----- From: bgraham@navagrahamlaw.com Sent: February 26, 2026 6:04:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Need articles or literature on South Coast Framing/ Causation standard Nooshin - I can hardly add to the excellent stuff that Darin and Andy posted. But I think that even the "material vs minimal" is setting the bar too HIGH for the quantum of proof needed and needlessly getting into arguments over incorrect standards of proof. "Material" was rejected in South Coast Framing. "Minimal" under the 1997 PDRS has a legal meaning of -0- (i.e., minimal pain = 0% PD scheduled). It also is just too close to de minimus (i.e., close enough to -0-, so as to be ignored) for my taste. The "non-zero" quantity of contributing cause is the best phrasing of the question ("Although he could not assign an exact percentage of contribution, [Dr.] Bruff affirmed "[i]t's not zero ...." "South Coast Framing at page 14 of decision). Many long-time worker friendly evaluators use 1% as a shorthand for this concept - and will readily admit that much, much less than 1% is sufficient to meet "contributing cause." I also find it useful to set the stage for the doctors reminding them of Braewood and Zemke before they get to any analysis of South Coast Framing's contributing cause of something more than zero: "In reaching your opinion on whether or not the employment was a contributing cause of the injuries, please consider the three California Supreme Court cases: Braewood Convalescent Hospital vs. WCAB (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159 (an industrial injury occurs, "even though a healthy person would not have been injured by the event.")(emphasis added); Zemke vs. WCAB (1968) 68 Cal.2d 394, 33 CCC 352 (industrial aggravation of a pre-existing non-industrial condition imposes liability on the employer); and South Coast Framing vs. WCAB (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291 (reaffirming that a "contributing cause" is the correct standard for evaluating industrial causation; "it's like you have a big twelve inch pie and a couple little crumbs off the crust are due to the [employment].")" Of course, you can always give them a "pie chart" demonstrating how much (really, how little) industrial causation is required. 😊 Bret Graham, Esq. Nava Graham Montebello 420 N. Montebello Blvd., Ste 301 Montebello, CA 90640 (323) 888-1818 Ph (323) 888-7788 Fax (213) 590-1388 cell

"Andy Katz" Date: February 26, 2026 4:00:00 PM Subject: Re: Need articles or literature on South Coast Framing/ Causation standard Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Andy Katz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Articles might have stray commentary. Here’s some suggested language for a cover letter that helps summarize the rules from the decision: The Contributing Cause Standard The California Supreme Court in South Coast Framing, Inc. v WCAB (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 80 CCC 489 established that workers' compensation causation requires only that employment be a "contributing cause"—a significantly more lenient standard than tort law's causation requirements. The Court explained: "Cause under workers' compensation law 'has been held to be less restrictive than that used in tort law, because of the statutory policy set forth in the Labor Code favoring awards of employee benefits.' ... It is sufficient if the employment was a contributing cause of the injury." The threshold for causation is met when "the employment be one of the contributing causes without which the injury would not have occurred." Notably, the employment need not be the predominant or substantial cause—it need only be one factor among potentially many that contributed to the injury. Rejection of Minimum Percentage Requirements South Coast Framing rejected any requirement that industrial contribution reach a specific threshold or be precisely quantifiable. The Court upheld a finding of industrial causation even where "prescription drug was proximate cause of employee's death even though physician could not offer precise percentage figure for drug's level of contribution, only that 'it's not zero.'" This "not zero" formulation has become the operative standard, establishing that any non-minimal industrial contribution satisfies the causation requirement without demanding quantification or percentage allocation. Application: When Employment Qualifies as a Contributing Cause The Court provided several scenarios illustrating when employment constitutes a contributing cause: "Thus, an employee is entitled to workers' compensation benefits if: a new or aggravated injury results from medical treatment for an industrial injury; if an industrial injury contributes to a later nonindustrial accident or injury, or if the industrial injury merely accelerates, aggravates, or 'lights up' a preexisting disease." These examples demonstrate the breadth of industrial causation, extending beyond direct workplace injuries to encompass consequences, complications, and aggravations of pre-existing conditions. Employee's Physical Condition Is Irrelevant The decision emphasized that pre-existing vulnerabilities do not defeat industrial causation: "In addition, the employee's physical condition is irrelevant to the causation analysis. ... 'an employee may not be denied compensation merely because his physical condition was such that he sustained a disability which a person of stronger constitution or in better health would not have suffered.'" This "eggshell plaintiff" principle means that employers take employees as they find them, and cannot avoid liability based on the employee's susceptibility to injury. Limits on Industrial Causation The Court also clarified when industrial causation is inappropriate: "A finding of industrial causation, however, is inappropriate when 'the nature of the employee's duties merely provided a stage for the injury, if the employment w[as] an after the fact rationalization, or if the evidence established that the employment was a mere passive element that a non-industrial condition happened to have focused on.'" Thus, while the causation standard is lenient, it still requires that employment play an active contributing role rather than serving merely as the incidental location or backdrop for a purely non-industrial condition. Distinction from Tort Law Causation South Coast Framing distinguished workers' compensation causation from tort standards: "Proximate cause in the workers' compensation context differs from legal causation in tort law, where causation is expressed as the 'but for' test (i.e., the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence) or as the substantial factor test." Unlike tort law, which may require that the defendant's conduct be a substantial factor, workers' compensation requires only that employment be a contributing factor—however minor that contribution may be, so long as it is not zero. Practical Implications Under South Coast Framing , industrial causation does not require: Precise percentages or quantification of industrial contribution That industrial factors be the predominant or primary cause That industrial factors constitute a "substantial" factor (as required in tort law) Medical certainty regarding the degree of contribution The determinative question is whether employment was one of the contributing causes of the injury. If the answer is affirmative—even if non-industrial factors played a larger or primary role—the injury is compensable.

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: February 24, 2026 12:55:00 PM Subject: Re: REQUEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING INFORMATION Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Kristy, I recently had the same issue. I had a request for my client’s signature on a Social Security release. It went to trial, and I won. The issue is now up on recon. The judge didn’t go into detail as to why he didn’t allow it. Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From: Kristy Hunter (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 12:31 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] REQUEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING INFORMATION List: lawnet Sent By: Kristy Hunter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi, All: Defense is asking one of my clients to sign a REQUEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING INFORMATION form. I haven't seen one of these before. They say it is "necessary to investigate your client's potential entitlement to disability indemnity and the appropriate compensation rate for any disability benefits." Have any of you seen this before? It's an old case that I'm now handling. I would normally expect them to get that type of info from a depo, but the only depo in this case was years ago. Have any of you seen this method of gathering info?

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: February 10, 2026 4:34:00 PM Subject: Concurrent Jurisdiction - Utah Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello All, I have a case where the contract for hire was made in California. The employee then moves to Utah and is sent to do a job in New Mexico. He is inured in New Mexico and is sent back to Utah for treatment. The case is accepted in Utah, and benefits are being paid. I contacted a Utah workers’ comp attorney who said that in Utah TTD can go on for 6 years but PD is very difficult to get, He will probably get more TTD in Utah and more PD in California. So if I file in California, do I run the risk of cutting TTD short? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Kevin Bryant" Date: February 09, 2026 4:06:00 PM Subject: Re: Work Restriction - No Driving Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kevin Bryant Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings 4658.1 actually just requires the work to be “ located within reasonable commuting distance of the employee's residence at the time of injury.” Sincerely, Kevin Bryant, Esq. Law Office of Kevin L. Bryant Mailing Address:    P.O. Box 1033, Citrus Heights, CA  95611 Physical Address:  1100 Melody Ln., Suite 131, Roseville, CA  95678 P:  (916) 520-4322 F:  (916) 520-4322 E:  kbryant@klbryantlaw.com From: Beatriz Trejo (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 1:58 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] Work Restriction - No Driving List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Zack, Keep in mind that LC 4658.1 says that the offer has to be at the same location, so it sounds like they don't have a valid offer of work. Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From: Zachary Frost (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 1:26 PM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [lawnet] Work Restriction - No Driving List: lawnet Sent By: Zachary Frost Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello. I could use some help if anyone knows the answer. Injured worker works in a warehouse. He fell off a machine at work causing a head and back injury. He had been TTD and receiving payments for the past few months. Recently, his PTP put him on modified duty with work restrictions, one being no driving at all. Defendant offered modified duty at a 3rd party company (Good Will) that is about 10 miles away from the injured worker's home. 3rd party company claims they can offer work within the restrictions (not addressing the no driving restriction). I asked Defendant if they will be providing transportation to and from modified duty job based on no driving restriction. They stated they will not claiming they are not required to do so. They provide the following case law: Perry v. Direct TV, 2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 191 Guillen v. Hub Group Trucking, 2020 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 159 Neither of those cases actually say that the Defendant does not have to provided transportation when there is a work restriction from the PTP (or QME) of no driving. Does anyone know whether transportation has to be provided for modified duty when there is a temporary work restriction from the PTP of no driving? Thank you. - Zachary Frost (Fremont)

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: January 23, 2026 5:43:00 PM Subject: Vouchers and I-TIN Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a client who has an I-TIN, but at the time of his injury, he was using a different SSN. He got the voucher and he is not sure what to put on the state website for his SSN. Has anyone else had this issue? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

From: Dane Gilliam (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:32:31 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] Syed Tirmizi, Ashkan Naraghi or Joshua Rice LA Internal PQME's

Tirmizi wrote a terrible report and despite evidence to the contrary would not change at the time of deposition. I would never use him again. Jeff Linnetz Los Angeles

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: November 11, 2025 5:29:00 PM Subject: Re: Syed Tirmizi, Ashkan Naraghi or Joshua Rice LA Internal PQME's Reply to list Reply to sender Print Tirmizi would not give me contributing cause on a death case. He said that there was no evidence of elevated blood pressure during the period in question, but there was plenty of evidence, including detailed medical records and the widow’s testimony. He would not change his mind. I lost at trial but won on recon. Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From: ron ehrman (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 11:17 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Syed Tirmizi, Ashkan Naraghi or Joshua Rice LA Internal PQME's List: lawnet Sent By: ron ehrman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Drew above three on a panel. Archives very split on Tirmizi; positive on Naraghi; and silent on Rice. Any info or current opinions on all three greatly appreciated. TYIA for all replies. Regards, Ron Ehrman, Esq. https://www.ronehrmanlaw.com LAW OFFICES OF RONALD P. EHRMAN 1930 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 505 Los Angeles, CA  90057 213.483.6300 tel 213.483.6303 fax rpe@ronehrmanlaw.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged and confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: October 15, 2025 1:57:00 PM Subject: Re: DA has not filed C&R with WCAB Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I feel like I am seeing this more and more. I send back settlement documents just to be told that their client has to approve that final version and I am having to file DORs because I don’t hear back. Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From: Lawrence R. Whiting (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 11:47 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re:[lawnet] DA has not filed C&R with WCAB List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Would a status conference been quicker? -----Original Message----- From: kbryant@klbryantlaw.com Sent: October 15, 2025 1:31:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: DA has not filed C&R with WCAB I sent signed C&R to DA 30 days ago to sign and file with WCAB. DA's office has still not done this. She won't respond to my emails or calls. Her assistant doesn't respond to my emails either. I filed a DOR for a MSC, which isn't until early November. Is there anything else you all do in these circumstances?

"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: October 14, 2025 5:20:00 PM Subject: Re: SIBTF - Credit over 100% from prior awards. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Unfortunately, labor code section 4753 is fairly expansive in so far as credits is concerned. Check the case of SIF v IAC 28 CCC 144, 149. This is extreme detail into the development of the credit allowances and the very few exceptions allowed. Although the above case deals with Social Security, the code section undoubtedly deals with other payments that don't fit the narrow exceptions. -----Original Message----- From: sbshammer@aol.com Sent: October 14, 2025 4:12:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: SIBTF - Credit over 100% from prior awards. Beatriz, I would like to hear from others concerning the credit. I too believe you can choose from the credit from the other settlements. With that said the fund always tries to take credit for all the other settlements. I would like to know if there is case law supporting your right to choose relative to the credits. I agree with Bonnie relative to the TD rate you would base your 100% on. -----Original Message----- From: btrejo@chainlaw.com Sent: October 13, 2025 5:44:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: SIBTF - Credit over 100% from prior awards. 1. I have a client that has 95% from her SII. She has a number of prior awards that get her well over 100%. I took the position that SIBTF can you only take credit for 5% based on the amount needed to get to 100%. They are claiming that "any source" means over 100%. I thought they could only take credit for what we are claiming. Am I wrong? 1. Same client - she had broken periods of TTD and by the time TTD ended/TPD started it was two years later and a higher rate, I am arguing that the rate for SIBTF purposes is the higher rate at the start of PTD. Should it go back to the TTD rate on the date of the injury? [photo]<https://www.chainlaw.com/> Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain ' Cohn ' Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers' Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue ' Bakersfield, CA ' 93301<https://maps.google.com/?q=1731%20Chester%20Avenue%20'%20Bakersfield,%20CA%20'%2093301> (661) 323-4000 '<tel:(661)323-4000'> btrejo@chainlaw.com<mailto:btrejo@chainlaw.com> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Steve Schulman" Date: October 14, 2025 4:12:00 PM Subject: Re: SIBTF - Credit over 100% from prior awards. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Schulman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Beatriz, I would like to hear from others concerning the credit. I too believe you can choose from the credit from the other settlements. With that said the fund always tries to take credit for all the other settlements. I would like to know if there is case law supporting your right to choose relative to the credits. I agree with Bonnie relative to the TD rate you would base your 100% on. -----Original Message----- From: btrejo@chainlaw.com Sent: October 13, 2025 5:44:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: SIBTF - Credit over 100% from prior awards. 1. I have a client that has 95% from her SII. She has a number of prior awards that get her well over 100%. I took the position that SIBTF can you only take credit for 5% based on the amount needed to get to 100%. They are claiming that "any source" means over 100%. I thought they could only take credit for what we are claiming. Am I wrong? 1. Same client - she had broken periods of TTD and by the time TTD ended/TPD started it was two years later and a higher rate, I am arguing that the rate for SIBTF purposes is the higher rate at the start of PTD. Should it go back to the TTD rate on the date of the injury? [photo]<https://www.chainlaw.com/> Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain ' Cohn ' Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers' Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue ' Bakersfield, CA ' 93301<https://maps.google.com/?q=1731%20Chester%20Avenue%20'%20Bakersfield,%20CA%20'%2093301> (661) 323-4000 '<tel:(661)323-4000'> btrejo@chainlaw.com<mailto:btrejo@chainlaw.com> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Bonnie Wilson" Date: October 14, 2025 12:08:00 PM Subject: Re: SIBTF - Credit over 100% from prior awards. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bonnie Binder-Wilson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Labor Code Section 4661.5 is your answer.  The amount of TD is based on the date each TD payment is made.  Usually it is through a union increase in pay. 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: Beatriz Trejo (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 3:43 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] SIBTF - Credit over 100% from prior awards. List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a client that has 95% from her SII. She has a number of prior awards that get her well over 100%. I took the position that SIBTF can you only take credit for 5% based on the amount needed to get to 100%. They are claiming that “any source” means over 100%. I thought they could only take credit for what we are claiming. Am I wrong? Same client – she had broken periods of TTD and by the time TTD ended/TPD started it was two years later and a higher rate, I am arguing that the rate for SIBTF purposes is the higher rate at the start of PTD. Should it go back to the TTD rate on the date of the injury? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: October 13, 2025 5:44:00 PM Subject: SIBTF - Credit over 100% from prior awards. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a client that has 95% from her SII. She has a number of prior awards that get her well over 100%. I took the position that SIBTF can you only take credit for 5% based on the amount needed to get to 100%. They are claiming that “any source” means over 100%. I thought they could only take credit for what we are claiming. Am I wrong? Same client – she had broken periods of TTD and by the time TTD ended/TPD started it was two years later and a higher rate, I am arguing that the rate for SIBTF purposes is the higher rate at the start of PTD. Should it go back to the TTD rate on the date of the injury? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

Yeah I have one where the client treated a ton but they sent a letter stating they are not pursuing a lien. Ibrahim Ellahib Anaheim

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: October 03, 2025 5:15:00 PM Subject: Medi-Cal Liens and Third Party Cases Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Has anyone else noticed that Medi-Cal is no longer filing liens in comp cases where there is a third party? It sounds like they are going after their civil money, but its letting defendants off the hook in our cases. Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

From: Beatriz Trejo (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:59 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Ventura County Family Law attorney

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: September 29, 2025 1:00:00 PM Subject: Ventura County Family Law attorney Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello everyone, I am looking for a family law attorney to help with a guardianship matter in Ventura County. Can anyone recommend anyone? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: September 17, 2025 12:48:00 PM Subject: WCAB Judge Opening in Bakersfield Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Any takers?! Here is the link. CalCareers Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: September 10, 2025 2:10:00 PM Subject: SIBTF Vocational Expert Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Does anyone have a Vocational Expert that understands SIBTF? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: June 19, 2025 12:14:00 PM Subject: Re: Treatment for out of State Applicant Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Ooops, it should be advise CMS of CONDITIONAL PAYMENTS. -----Original Message----- From: iodlaw@sbcglobal.net Sent: June 19, 2025 11:36:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Treatment for out of State Applicant I have a different take on this argument. If the employer is letting the applicant treat with the doctor of their choosing and who is not involved in the comp case it may be to the applicant's benefit. There will be no UR's. There will be no delays in follow-up diagnostic requests, etc. You should perhaps consider continuing the treatment with the Medicare doctor with a letter to Medicare/CMS concerning concurrent services with the information for the insurance/employer's information. Insofar as the travel expenses are concerned they are usually minor. If that is your client's case then save the travel expenses for the end of the case. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: June 10, 2025 11:02:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Treatment for out of State Applicant Philip, "Has anyone encountered this defense argument?" No. Your DA is making stuff up. Ask for DA's authority that Defendant's duty to provide medical care is satisfied by Medicare paying for medical care. I like to cite to WCJ's that t he Defendant has an affirmative duty to provide medical treatment. "One of the fundamental principles of the Workers' Compensation Act is that it is the employer's responsibility to provide all medical treatment reasonably required to effect the proper care and speedy recovery of injured employees;" Bell v. Samaritan Medical Clinic Inc., 60 CA3rd 486, 41 CCC 415 (1976). The basic affirmative obligation has been described as a "primary duty" on the part of the employer; Simien v. IAC,138 CA2d 397, 21 CCC 10 (1956), which is not in the nature of a penalty, but of a part of the whole compensation due the employee as a result of the industrial injury; SCIF v. WCAB (Silva), 71 CA3d 133, 42 CCC 493 (1977); Union Iron Works v. IAC (Henneberry), 190 C.33, 9 IAC 223 (1922). Section 4600 requires more than a passive willingness on the part of the employer to respond to a demand or request for medical aid. This section requires some degree of active effort to bring to the injured employee the necessary relief. It should not be too hard to compel Defendant to arrange medical travel expenses. I didn't know this, but there is a burden of proof concerning Defendant proving medical travel (see attached case Robbie Clark ) - "defendant failed to meet burden of proving that distance was unreasonable in present case, and that totality of circumstances justified reimbursement of applicant's travel expenses." As for paying for the travel, rather than seeking reimbursement, others on LawNet have cited Labor Code 4600(e)(2) that requires an advance of mileage: (see last sentence): "Regardless of the date of injury, "reasonable expenses of transportation" includes mileage fees from the employee's home to the place of the examination and back at the rate of twenty-one cents ($0.21) a mile or the mileage rate adopted by the Director of Human Resources pursuant to Section 19820 of the Government Code, whichever is higher, plus any bridge tolls. The mileage and tolls shall be paid to the employee at the time the employee is given notification of the time and place of the examination." Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://the-compensation-law-center.business.site/ ' 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, June 9, 2025 4:28:56 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Treatment for out of State Applicant List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:cmallory@mlawca.com ' Christy Mallory ] [ mailto:cmallory@mlawca.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Treatment%20for%20out%20of%20State%20Applicant ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Treatment%20for%20out%20of%20State%20Applicant ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Defense is wrong and asserting a position without merit or legal support. I haven't had anyone careless enough to put forth such a position. All you have to do is looking at the CMS website for MSAs. It sets out the federal rules that state Medicare is a secondary payor and does not pay when there is primary insurance which includes workers' compensation. Plus, the federal law and regulatory authority is included in the MSA addendums provided by defendants. This person should know better.... With that said, the defense "isn't" wrong if we are talking about practical reality of out-of-state injured workers' trying to get treatment. Often times, they do end up using Medicare because they cannot find a provider or cannot afford to arrange their own travel to CA then wait for the parties to argue over reimbursement. Very truly yours, Christy Mallory Law Office of Christy A. Mallory From: Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:11 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Treatment for out of State Applicant List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:phil@sandiego-injurylawyer.com ' Philip Cohen ] [ mailto:phil@sandiego-injurylawyer.com?subject=Re%3A%20Treatment%20for%20out%20of%20State%20Applicant ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Treatment%20for%20out%20of%20State%20Applicant ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] I know there is case ;law holding that if the worker is living out of State and can't find anyone in the State of residence to treat defense must bring the worker/applicant to CA to Treat. We have that circumstance but defense is arguing that if the client is on Medicare, if they can find a doctor in the State of Residence to treat under CMS, he must treat with that doctor. Has anyone encountered this defense argument? I would think even CIGA can't put duty to provide treatment on CMS for a work injury. 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

"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: June 19, 2025 11:36:00 AM Subject: Re: Treatment for out of State Applicant Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a different take on this argument. If the employer is letting the applicant treat with the doctor of their choosing and who is not involved in the comp case it may be to the applicant's benefit. There will be no UR's. There will be no delays in follow-up diagnostic requests, etc. You should perhaps consider continuing the treatment with the Medicare doctor with a letter to Medicare/CMS concerning concurrent services with the information for the insurance/employer's information. Insofar as the travel expenses are concerned they are usually minor. If that is your client's case then save the travel expenses for the end of the case. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: June 10, 2025 11:02:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Treatment for out of State Applicant Philip, "Has anyone encountered this defense argument?" No. Your DA is making stuff up. Ask for DA's authority that Defendant's duty to provide medical care is satisfied by Medicare paying for medical care. I like to cite to WCJ's that t he Defendant has an affirmative duty to provide medical treatment. "One of the fundamental principles of the Workers' Compensation Act is that it is the employer's responsibility to provide all medical treatment reasonably required to effect the proper care and speedy recovery of injured employees;" Bell v. Samaritan Medical Clinic Inc., 60 CA3rd 486, 41 CCC 415 (1976). The basic affirmative obligation has been described as a "primary duty" on the part of the employer; Simien v. IAC,138 CA2d 397, 21 CCC 10 (1956), which is not in the nature of a penalty, but of a part of the whole compensation due the employee as a result of the industrial injury; SCIF v. WCAB (Silva), 71 CA3d 133, 42 CCC 493 (1977); Union Iron Works v. IAC (Henneberry), 190 C.33, 9 IAC 223 (1922). Section 4600 requires more than a passive willingness on the part of the employer to respond to a demand or request for medical aid. This section requires some degree of active effort to bring to the injured employee the necessary relief. It should not be too hard to compel Defendant to arrange medical travel expenses. I didn't know this, but there is a burden of proof concerning Defendant proving medical travel (see attached case Robbie Clark ) - "defendant failed to meet burden of proving that distance was unreasonable in present case, and that totality of circumstances justified reimbursement of applicant's travel expenses." As for paying for the travel, rather than seeking reimbursement, others on LawNet have cited Labor Code 4600(e)(2) that requires an advance of mileage: (see last sentence): "Regardless of the date of injury, "reasonable expenses of transportation" includes mileage fees from the employee's home to the place of the examination and back at the rate of twenty-one cents ($0.21) a mile or the mileage rate adopted by the Director of Human Resources pursuant to Section 19820 of the Government Code, whichever is higher, plus any bridge tolls. The mileage and tolls shall be paid to the employee at the time the employee is given notification of the time and place of the examination." Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://the-compensation-law-center.business.site/ ' 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, June 9, 2025 4:28:56 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Treatment for out of State Applicant List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:cmallory@mlawca.com ' Christy Mallory ] [ mailto:cmallory@mlawca.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Treatment%20for%20out%20of%20State%20Applicant ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Treatment%20for%20out%20of%20State%20Applicant ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Defense is wrong and asserting a position without merit or legal support. I haven't had anyone careless enough to put forth such a position. All you have to do is looking at the CMS website for MSAs. It sets out the federal rules that state Medicare is a secondary payor and does not pay when there is primary insurance which includes workers' compensation. Plus, the federal law and regulatory authority is included in the MSA addendums provided by defendants. This person should know better.... With that said, the defense "isn't" wrong if we are talking about practical reality of out-of-state injured workers' trying to get treatment. Often times, they do end up using Medicare because they cannot find a provider or cannot afford to arrange their own travel to CA then wait for the parties to argue over reimbursement. Very truly yours, Christy Mallory Law Office of Christy A. Mallory From: Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:11 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Treatment for out of State Applicant List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:phil@sandiego-injurylawyer.com ' Philip Cohen ] [ mailto:phil@sandiego-injurylawyer.com?subject=Re%3A%20Treatment%20for%20out%20of%20State%20Applicant ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Treatment%20for%20out%20of%20State%20Applicant ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] I know there is case ;law holding that if the worker is living out of State and can't find anyone in the State of residence to treat defense must bring the worker/applicant to CA to Treat. We have that circumstance but defense is arguing that if the client is on Medicare, if they can find a doctor in the State of Residence to treat under CMS, he must treat with that doctor. Has anyone encountered this defense argument? I would think even CIGA can't put duty to provide treatment on CMS for a work injury. 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

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: May 16, 2025 3:42:00 PM Subject: Re: 4600(f) Proficiency in English Reply to list Reply to sender Print I see. I am looking to see if a case uses proficiency, since proficiency is a higher standard. Beatriz A. Trejo, Esq. Partner Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization Phone: (661) 323-4000 Fax: (661) 324-1352 Chain | Cohn | Clark 1731 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, Calif. 93301 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 12:35 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] 4600(f) Proficiency in English List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I had a similar case but in my case, everybody knew my client knew enough English to perform his job as Maintenance Supervisor at an apartment complex so he could read work orders and write how he fixed them, but he was not "fluent" in English. I went t trial and lost because the WCJ (Sarah Lopez, gone now and good riddance) believed the apartment Manager who said my client was fluent in read/write/speak English even as he testified at trial via an Interpreter that he only knew enough English to do his job. It is an issue of credibility and the trial WCJ (in my case, a forever Defense Atty) opinion on what is "fluent". There are no cases, I wrote a Petition for Reconsideration and I know. You are going to have to go to trial about whether your client needs an Interpreter, which should be fairly easy to prove since English speakers from birth are often hazy about medical terminology. Just pull out a medical report and ask your client to read it aloud and explain what all the test results were and her diagnoses are. 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: Friday, May 16, 2025 12:07:39 PM Subject: [lawnet] 4600(f) Proficiency in English List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello everyone, I have a case where my client does speak some English. She does mainly groundskeeping alone. She did go to PTP appointments without an interpreter before being represented. I have now requested an interpreter and I got an objection stating that she is proficient because she does not use an interpreter at work or with her supervisor. Does anyone have a case that defines “proficiency?” or some case that goes to this issue? Beatriz A. Trejo, Esq. Partner Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization Phone: (661) 323-4000 Fax: (661) 324-1352 btrejo@chainlaw.com 1731 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, Calif. 93301 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message.

"Esequiel Solorio" Date: April 02, 2025 6:41:00 PM Subject: Re: loss of vision of one eye standard rating? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Esequiel Solorio Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you Ms. Trejo. Im trying to ball park it as i have serious loss of vision but a client not willing to wait for formal eye QME evaluation. Zeke Modesto -----Original Message----- From: btrejo@chainlaw.com Sent: April 02, 2025 6:34:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: loss of vision of one eye standard rating? I think the 0 Visual Acuity Score goes like this: 0 VAS; Table 12-3, (100x3)+0+100 = 400; 400/5 = 80 FAS 80 FAS -15 = 65 FVS, 100-65 = 35 VI= 35 WP But in my case there was an adjustments, Page 297, Loss of Stereo Binocular Function 10 Points, Ocular Disfigurement and Exotropia 5 Points: 15 Points Beatriz A. Trejo, Esq. Partner Certified Legal Specialist in Workers' Compensation by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization Phone: (661) 323-4000 Fax: (661) 324-1352 Chain ' Cohn ' Clark 1731 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, Calif. 93301 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. From: Esequiel Solorio (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 4:14 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] loss of vision of one eye standard rating? List: lawnet Sent By: Esequiel Solorio<mailto:wcsolorio@gmail.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:wcsolorio@gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20loss%20of%20vision%20of%20one%20eye%20standard%20rating%3F> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20loss%20of%20vision%20of%20one%20eye%20standard%20rating%3F> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> Does anyone know what WPI would be assigned for a total loss of vision in one eye.? Zeke Modesto

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: April 02, 2025 6:34:00 PM Subject: Re: loss of vision of one eye standard rating? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think the 0 Visual Acuity Score  goes like this: 0 VAS; Table 12-3, (100x3)+0+100 = 400; 400/5 = 80 FAS 80 FAS -15 = 65 FVS, 100-65 = 35 VI= 35 WP But in my case there was an adjustments, Page 297, Loss of Stereo Binocular Function 10 Points, Ocular Disfigurement and Exotropia 5 Points: 15 Points Beatriz A. Trejo, Esq. Partner Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization Phone: (661) 323-4000 Fax: (661) 324-1352 Chain | Cohn | Clark 1731 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, Calif. 93301 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. From: Esequiel Solorio (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 4:14 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] loss of vision of one eye standard rating? List: lawnet Sent By: Esequiel Solorio Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Does anyone know what WPI would be assigned for a total loss of vision in one eye.? Zeke Modesto

"Vic Redula" Date: February 10, 2025 12:46:00 PM Subject: Re: Thin Skull Case Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Vic R. Redula Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thanks Bret! Vic Redula Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, February 10, 2025, 10:39 AM, Vic Redula <vicrredula@yahoo.com> wrote: Thank you so much Hollie for taking time to answer my concern very thoroughly! Vic Redula Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, February 10, 2025, 10:22 AM, Bret Graham (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Bret Graham Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings VIC – not exactly sure which case you are looking for. In PI, of course is the “egg-shell plaintiff” doctrine as expressed in CACI Jury Instruction 3928 -- Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff; and CACI Jury Instruction 3927-- Aggravation of Preexisting Condition or Disability. BUT in WC, we have my favorite case: Braewood Convalescent Hospital vs. WCAB (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159 (an industrial injury occurs, “even though a healthy person would not have been injured by the event.” ); see also Zemke vs. WCAB (1968) 68 Cal.2d 394, 33 CCC 352 (industrial aggravation of a pre-existing non-industrial condition imposes liability on the employer); and South Coast Framing vs. WCAB (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291(reaffirming the “contributing cause” standard for industrial causation). These decades old CA supreme court cases all stand for the same thing – the bar for AOE/COE is really, really low – way less than even 1% of the overall causation of injury . Apportionment of PD, however . . . . is another story. Hopefully, this points you in the right direction. Bret Graham, Esq. Nava Graham Montebello 420 N. Montebello Blvd., Ste 301 Montebello, CA 90640 (323) 888-1818 Ph (323) 888-7788 Fax (213) 590-1388 cell

"Vic Redula" Date: February 10, 2025 12:40:00 PM Subject: Re: Thin Skull Case Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Vic R. Redula Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you so much Hollie for taking time to answer my concern very thoroughly! Vic Redula Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, February 10, 2025, 10:22 AM, Bret Graham (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Bret Graham Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings VIC – not exactly sure which case you are looking for. In PI, of course is the “egg-shell plaintiff” doctrine as expressed in CACI Jury Instruction 3928 -- Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff; and CACI Jury Instruction 3927-- Aggravation of Preexisting Condition or Disability. BUT in WC, we have my favorite case: Braewood Convalescent Hospital vs. WCAB (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159 (an industrial injury occurs, “even though a healthy person would not have been injured by the event.” ); see also Zemke vs. WCAB (1968) 68 Cal.2d 394, 33 CCC 352 (industrial aggravation of a pre-existing non-industrial condition imposes liability on the employer); and South Coast Framing vs. WCAB (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291(reaffirming the “contributing cause” standard for industrial causation). These decades old CA supreme court cases all stand for the same thing – the bar for AOE/COE is really, really low – way less than even 1% of the overall causation of injury . Apportionment of PD, however . . . . is another story. Hopefully, this points you in the right direction. Bret Graham, Esq. Nava Graham Montebello 420 N. Montebello Blvd., Ste 301 Montebello, CA 90640 (323) 888-1818 Ph (323) 888-7788 Fax (213) 590-1388 cell

"Bret Graham" Date: February 26, 2026 6:04:00 PM Subject: Re: Need articles or literature on South Coast Framing/ Causation standard Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bret Graham Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Nooshin – I can hardly add to the excellent stuff that Darin and Andy posted. But I think that even the “material vs minimal” is setting the bar too HIGH for the quantum of proof needed and needlessly getting into arguments over incorrect standards of proof. “Material” was rejected in South Coast Framing . “Minimal” under the 1997 PDRS has a legal meaning of -0- (i.e., minimal pain = 0% PD scheduled). It also is just too close to de minimus (i.e., close enough to -0-, so as to be ignored) for my taste. The “non-zero” quantity of contributing cause is the best phrasing of the question (“Although he could not assign an exact percentage of contribution, [Dr.] Bruff affirmed “[i]t ’ s not zero ....”  “ South Coast Framing at page 14 of decision). Many long-time worker friendly evaluators use 1% as a shorthand for this concept - and will readily admit that much, much less than 1% is sufficient to meet “contributing cause.” I also find it useful to set the stage for the doctors reminding them of Braewood and Zemke before they get to any analysis of South Coast Framing’s contributing cause of something more than zero: “In reaching your opinion on whether or not the employment was a contributing cause of the injuries, please consider the three California Supreme Court cases: Braewood Convalescent Hospital vs. WCAB (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159 (an industrial injury occurs, “ even though a healthy person would not have been injured by the event .”)(emphasis added); Zemke vs. WCAB (1968) 68 Cal.2d 394, 33 CCC 352 (industrial aggravation of a pre-existing non-industrial condition imposes liability on the employer); and South Coast Framing vs. WCAB (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291 (reaffirming that a “contributing cause” is the correct standard for evaluating industrial causation; “it’s like you have a big twelve inch pie and a couple little crumbs off the crust are due to the [employment].”)” Of course, you can always give them a “pie chart” demonstrating how much (really, how little) industrial causation is required. 😊 Bret Graham, Esq. Nava Graham Montebello 420 N. Montebello Blvd., Ste 301 Montebello, CA 90640 (323) 888-1818 Ph (323) 888-7788 Fax (213) 590-1388 cell

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: October 24, 2025 11:46:00 AM Subject: Re: QME Elana harway or Samera Kasim Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have Elana on a few cases where she has given very high WPIs, including a 100% case; however, her opinions are not strong, and you will need to do a lot of clean-up because she does not explain her conclusions. I also get the sense she flips easily. Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From: Diana Berlin (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 4:13 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] QME Elana harway or Samera Kasim List: lawnet Sent By: Diana Berlin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you William. I have a chance to request a new Panel. Not scheduling timely. Sincerely, Diana ************************ Law Offices of Diana B. Berlin, A Professional Corporation 18425 Burbank Blvd. Ste 719 Tarzana, CA  91356 Phone #:(818) 757-7292 Fax #: (818) 757-7252 www.dbinjurylawyer.com The information contained in this email message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney/client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email, and delete the original message. From: William Herreras (lawnet listserver) Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 3:42 PM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: Re:[lawnet] QME Elana harway or Samera Kasim List: lawnet Sent By: William Herreras Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Strike Dr Harway too conservative and not thorough. Bill Herreras

On Oct 3, 2025, at 4:29 PM, Ibrahim Ellahib (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: September 29, 2025 1:23:00 PM Subject: Re: Ventura County Family Law attorney Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you! Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From: Crystal Forsher (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 11:05 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re:[lawnet] Ventura County Family Law attorney List: lawnet Sent By: Crystal Forsher Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Bamieh & De Smeth Crystal C. Forsher, ESQ. Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist CAAA Central Coast Chapter President Herreras & Forsher, LLP MAILING ADDRESS PO BOX 1668 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 P: (805) 473-8550 F: (805) 473-8583 E: Crystal.forsher@herrerasforsher.com W: www.herrerasforsher.com Serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties for all your Workers' Compensation needs. This message is protected by the Electronic Communications Act, 19 U.S.C., Sections 2510-2521, and is confidential and is subject to privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege. The information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the identified recipient. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us. From: Beatriz Trejo (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:59 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [lawnet] Ventura County Family Law attorney List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello everyone, I am looking for a family law attorney to help with a guardianship matter in Ventura County. Can anyone recommend anyone? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

Ken Martinson Gómez Latino Caucus San Bruno

On Aug 8, 2025, at 4:26 PM, Michael Georgariou (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:

"Bret Graham" Date: August 08, 2025 3:01:00 PM Subject: Re: Cardio QME Depo Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bret Graham Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings VIC – that’s an uphill climb for sure. As I have posted previously, NEUROLOGY is rarely going to give you industrial causation on a stroke – they are too conservative and just cop out with idiopathic or a laundry list of non-work risk factors. SHEN WANG has been good IMHO for applicants as a QME so seems like you need some more evidence for him . Did she have a prolonged or a spike to VERY high BP which caused a HEMORRHAGIC stroke or was it a clot based ISCHEMIC stroke? You also don’t tell us what exactly is your theory as to the mechanism of injury ? Was it orthostatic hypo tension (or orthostatic hyper tension)? Heat induced dehydration or heatstroke? Head injury or a blow to the head? The QME’s don’t seem to like generic “stress” from the job. Or was it an industrial aggravation of hypertension which would then be a risk factor for stroke. You don’t say if the prior heart attack was industrial or whether that would be part of a longer CT. OSA or COPD also are stroke risk factors which your client potentially could have on an industrial basis. You are gonna need an INTERNAL QME to prove any of these and to try to triangulate around the neurology non-industrial finding. Have you filed a CT for orthopedic body parts (back, neck etc.) the pain or medications for treatment (even over the counter NSAIDS) for which could industrially aggravate hypertension/heart. Probably need a musculoskeletal QME (PMR, PAIN, DCH etc) for that to collect evidence for the internal QME to then give back to QME Wang an industrial hypertension finding. Lastly, I always send the QME’s the following language in my advocacy letter for CT claims (and then ask about this very issue in depo): In reaching your opinion on whether or not her employment was a contributing factor to her injuries, please consider the three California Supreme Court cases: Braewood Convalescent Hospital vs. WCAB (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159 (an industrial injury occurs, “ even though a healthy person would not have been injured by the event .”)(emphasis added); Zemke vs. WCAB (1968) 68 Cal.2d 394, 33 CCC 352 (industrial aggravation of a pre-existing non-industrial condition imposes liability on the employer); and South Coast Framing vs. WCAB (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291 (reaffirming that a “contributing cause” is the correct standard for evaluating industrial causation; “it’s like you have a big twelve inch pie and a couple little crumbs off the crust are due to the [employment].”) Ironically, I think there is a CAAA webinar going on right now on this very topic. Those are my thoughts. There are probably many more potential stroke risk factors or avenues of attach that you or others have thought of which could be applicable to your client. Best of luck. Bret Graham, Esq. Nava Graham Montebello 420 N. Montebello Blvd., Ste 301 Montebello, CA 90640 (323) 888-1818 Ph (323) 888-7788 Fax (213) 590-1388 cell

I have received 2 MMI reports from IOH and they were both useless. Miranda Freitas Condra (she/her) Attorney at  Minaie Law Group, APC A 402 W Broadway, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 C (949) 402-7111 Mailing Address 34 Executive Park, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92614 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This message and any attachments are confidential.  The information is intended only for the use of the addressee(s), and any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the information is prohibited.  Should this message be received in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and all attachments.  Please advise us immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Thank you. Pursuant to applicable federal regulations, we are required to inform you that any advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used nor can it be used for purposes of: (1) avoiding tax penalties or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed above.

From: Alexander Leigh (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 11:07 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] rate-fast.com MMI Reports from IOH?

Hello All, Has anyone had any success at trial with these MMI reports coming out of Institutes of Health? They are done through this www.rate-fast.com system that provides WPI rating. Their website says the ratings are based on the following which is how they come to their ratings: Whole Person Impairment (WPI) is an estimate of Activity of Daily Living loss. “The whole person impairment percentages listed in the Guides estimate the impact of the impairment on the individual’s overall ability to perform activities of daily living, excluding work, as listed in Table 1-2.” Page 4. The WPI is the “estimate” of the ADL functional loss, not the reverse. Calculating ratings based on ADL loss is direct and defensible WPI value creation, as opposed to the ratings determined based on estimates, flawed measurements, and incomplete references to tables from The Guides. Impairment can be manifest by pain and fatigue (e.g. ADLs). “An impairment can be manifested objectively, for example, by a fracture, and/or subjectively, through fatigue and pain.” Page 5. There is fixed 1:1 relationship of %WPI to %ADL functional loss. “For example, an individual who receives a 30% whole person impairment due to pericardial heart disease is considered from a clinical standpoint to have a 30% reduction in general functioning as represented by a decrease in the ability to perform activities of daily living.” Page 5. The AMA Guides use interpolation and impairment average weighting methods which are described and illustrated in multiple sections throughout the AMA Guides 5th Edition (References: Interpolation: Pages 20, 453, 455, 456, 457, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472, 474, 475, 476, 478, 538, and 549; Impairment average weighting: Pages 284, 289, 296 and 328). The rating value in this report is calculated by using the trapezoidal numerical method of loss under the injured worker’s ADL curve with an integral function using interpolation (y = y1 + ((x – x1) / (x2 – x1)) * (y2 – y1). The upper bound of the maximum value of the body system/body part is referenced in the PR-4 Report. I have a really horrible QME and got an 85% PD rating from Clark Smith. I am just not sure if a Judge will find these type of rating to be substantial. Please let me know. Thanks, Alex -- Alexander J. Leigh Founder & Managing Attorney Alexander@LeighLawFirm.com P: 619.202.7142 P: 310-626-4449 F: 619.350.1972 **PLEASE BE ADVISED, WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE OF ANY DOCUMENTS TO THIS EMAIL. DOCUMENTS MUST BE SERVED AT Service@LeighLawFirm.com ** SAN DIEGO 3160 Camino Del Rio S. Ste 300B, San Diego, CA 92108 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 3625 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd. Ste 214, Westlake Village CA 91362 InjuryLawFirmSoCal.com Los Angeles | San Diego Your Southern California Injury Attorney. This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.

"Dane P. Gilliam" Date: July 09, 2025 1:23:00 PM Subject: Re: KITE/VIGIL QUESTION: Using VR expert to address non-overlap and/or synergistic impact of ADL impacts from different "body systems" if the med-legal evaluators defer the questions? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: 240909 adj9983378 cano.pdf (575 K) Craig, Per the Cano decision, only doctors can address rebuttal of the CVC and the additive method. See attached. We all have come across doctors that are reluctant to add their impairments to the impairments of other specialists. They either do not have experience with it or they are afraid it will give them a liberal reputation.  My suggestion is after you have gotten to the point where the doctor has discussed the ADLs impacted and after they have deferred whether synergy on non-overlap applies, is to ask them if they would like to review cases where the WCAB upheld the addition of ortho to psyche and vice versa.  If the doctor sees case law on this issue, they will likely be more receptive to your Vigil questions. 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: Craig W. Morrison (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2025 8:24 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Cc: Craig Morrison <craig@morrisonlaw.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL][lawnet] KITE/VIGIL QUESTION: Using VR expert to address non-overlap and/or synergistic impact of ADL impacts from different "body systems" if the med-legal evaluators defer the questions? List: lawnet Sent By: Craig W. Morrison Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Kite/Vigil question: Applicant has injuries to various “body systems” (orthopedic, hearing loss, PTSD). The med-legal evaluators are reluctant to address the “non-overlap” and “synergistic affect” issue as it pertains to body systems outside their typical area of expertise (the orthopedic AME does not want to address whether there is any “overlap” with the PTSD injuries and/or whether the ortho and PTSD injuries have a negative synergistic impact upon the Applicant). SO: I there are reason not to have a VR expert address the non-overlap and/or synergistic impact re the different “body systems” (if the medical-legal evaluators defer those questions)? Thanks very much!  And my apologies if this has already been answered at one of the CAAA Conventions or on this List Serve (I did look and cannot seem to find the answer)……. /// Craig W. Morrison, Esq. PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY: P.O. BOX 70950 POINT RICHMOND, CA 94807 ALL OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION REMAINS THE SAME: EMAIL: CRAIG@MORRISONLAW.NET PHONE: (415) 445-9092 FACSIMILE: (415) 445-9093 DIRECT TEXT: (925) 8990-6332 WEBSITE: https://www.morrison.law

From: Philip Cohen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:11 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Treatment for out of State Applicant

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: March 13, 2025 2:14:00 PM Subject: Re: Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I'm in Sacramento, so I am not much help. I am a fan of Steve Ramirez. Fraud charges against him were dropped recently so he is good to go. His retainer is $2000, which CE has reimbursed to me the four times I have used him in the past three years, then CEs have paid his fees without a fight, which I find to be quite reasonable behavior. 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: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:07:23 PM Subject: Re:[lawnet] Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report List: lawnet Sent By: Joel Campbell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings That's an idea. I'm in Fresno, client is in San Diego area only becaues it was a good in patient option. Does anyone have recommendations for vocatinoal experts in southern California? -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: March 13, 2025 1:57:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report Can you get a Vocational Expert report and delay the PQME and PR-4 until you get it? Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://the-compensation-law-center.business.site/ ' 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: Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:42:55 AM Subject: [lawnet] Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:joel@valleylawgrp.com ' Joel Campbell ] [ mailto:joel@valleylawgrp.com?subject=Re%3A%20Major%20TBI%20%2F%20Clark%20Smith%20as%20PTP%20%2F%20Neuropsyche%20%2F%20Need%20100%25%20Report ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Major%20TBI%20%2F%20Clark%20Smith%20as%20PTP%20%2F%20Neuropsyche%20%2F%20Need%20100%25%20Report ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] My client was electrocuted 19 months ago, leading to a major anoxic brain injury. He is treating in patient at Learning Services in Escondido. He is starting to plateau, and still needs 12-hour / day 1:1 care for basic ADLs, hygiene, eating, etc. He has huge cognitive, neurobehavioral, functional and physical deficits and requires 12-hour/day 1:1 care. Some time ago the PTP noted in a report that he would not be able to return to work and there is a conservatorship (but she didn't use all the language we need to prove up 100%). There is a PM&R and neuropsychologist on the treatment team, and both seemed like they would help me when I spoke to them privately. However, 1) a neuropsyche exam wasn't authorized by Paradigm (the outsourced NCM company) because it's not necessary for treatment; and 2) the doctor's aren't willing to write a PR-4, refer out for a PR-4, say he's permanently mentally incapacitated, or that he "is permanently precluded from work in any capacity. It seems like a requirement Learning Services places on the doctors who are working with them, likely to make sure they stay in the good graces of the insurance companies. I am concerned that we'll go down PQME hell, especially since my office staff inadvertently requested a QME evaluation in psychology ... and of course there are no neuropsyches on it. I was thinking of changing PTP's to Dr. Clark Smith, a quadruple certified (psychiatrist, neurologist, pain medicine, forensic psychiatrist) in San Diego who works out of Institutes of Health. I see he has some good reviews as an AME in the Listserv, and his office indicated he would treat with carrier authorization. Unfortunately there are few one star reviews on Google, so that drops his online ratings down, and I'm concerned my client's wife will balk. I'm also a little afraid of going out on a limb since I've never used him. The client's wife wants him to stay at Learining Services and is concerned about the change of treater. Learning Services say they have a lot of patients who stay there for treatment, but the designed PTP is outside, and they provide transport. Any thoughts? Joel Campbell, Valley Law Group - Fresno Anythoughts on this? I think we need a neuropsychiatrist or neuropsychologist, but the carrier won't agree to an AME. The multi-disciplinary team has been treating great, and my client's wife (who has a

"Joel Campbell" Date: March 13, 2025 2:08:00 PM Subject: Re: Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Joel Campbell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings That's an idea. I'm in Fresno, client is in San Diego area only becaues it was a good in patient option. Does anyone have recommendations for vocatinoal experts in southern California? -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: March 13, 2025 1:57:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report Can you get a Vocational Expert report and delay the PQME and PR-4 until you get it? Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://the-compensation-law-center.business.site/ ' 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: Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:42:55 AM Subject: [lawnet] Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:joel@valleylawgrp.com ' Joel Campbell ] [ mailto:joel@valleylawgrp.com?subject=Re%3A%20Major%20TBI%20%2F%20Clark%20Smith%20as%20PTP%20%2F%20Neuropsyche%20%2F%20Need%20100%25%20Report ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Major%20TBI%20%2F%20Clark%20Smith%20as%20PTP%20%2F%20Neuropsyche%20%2F%20Need%20100%25%20Report ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] My client was electrocuted 19 months ago, leading to a major anoxic brain injury. He is treating in patient at Learning Services in Escondido. He is starting to plateau, and still needs 12-hour / day 1:1 care for basic ADLs, hygiene, eating, etc. He has huge cognitive, neurobehavioral, functional and physical deficits and requires 12-hour/day 1:1 care. Some time ago the PTP noted in a report that he would not be able to return to work and there is a conservatorship (but she didn't use all the language we need to prove up 100%). There is a PM&R and neuropsychologist on the treatment team, and both seemed like they would help me when I spoke to them privately. However, 1) a neuropsyche exam wasn't authorized by Paradigm (the outsourced NCM company) because it's not necessary for treatment; and 2) the doctor's aren't willing to write a PR-4, refer out for a PR-4, say he's permanently mentally incapacitated, or that he "is permanently precluded from work in any capacity. It seems like a requirement Learning Services places on the doctors who are working with them, likely to make sure they stay in the good graces of the insurance companies. I am concerned that we'll go down PQME hell, especially since my office staff inadvertently requested a QME evaluation in psychology ... and of course there are no neuropsyches on it. I was thinking of changing PTP's to Dr. Clark Smith, a quadruple certified (psychiatrist, neurologist, pain medicine, forensic psychiatrist) in San Diego who works out of Institutes of Health. I see he has some good reviews as an AME in the Listserv, and his office indicated he would treat with carrier authorization. Unfortunately there are few one star reviews on Google, so that drops his online ratings down, and I'm concerned my client's wife will balk. I'm also a little afraid of going out on a limb since I've never used him. The client's wife wants him to stay at Learining Services and is concerned about the change of treater. Learning Services say they have a lot of patients who stay there for treatment, but the designed PTP is outside, and they provide transport. Any thoughts? Joel Campbell, Valley Law Group - Fresno Anythoughts on this? I think we need a neuropsychiatrist or neuropsychologist, but the carrier won't agree to an AME. The multi-disciplinary team has been treating great, and my client's wife (who has a

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: March 13, 2025 1:57:00 PM Subject: Re: Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Can you get a Vocational Expert report and delay the PQME and PR-4 until you get it? 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: Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:42:55 AM Subject: [lawnet] Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report List: lawnet Sent By: Joel Campbell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings My client was electrocuted 19 months ago, leading to a major anoxic brain injury. He is treating in patient at Learning Services in Escondido. He is starting to plateau, and still needs 12-hour / day 1:1 care for basic ADLs, hygiene, eating, etc. He has huge cognitive, neurobehavioral, functional and physical deficits and requires 12-hour/day 1:1 care. Some time ago the PTP noted in a report that he would not be able to return to work and there is a conservatorship (but she didn't use all the language we need to prove up 100%). There is a PM&R and neuropsychologist on the treatment team, and both seemed like they would help me when I spoke to them privately. However, 1) a neuropsyche exam wasn't authorized by Paradigm (the outsourced NCM company) because it's not necessary for treatment; and 2) the doctor's aren't willing to write a PR-4, refer out for a PR-4, say he's permanently mentally incapacitated, or that he "is permanently precluded from work in any capacity. It seems like a requirement Learning Services places on the doctors who are working with them, likely to make sure they stay in the good graces of the insurance companies. I am concerned that we'll go down PQME hell, especially since my office staff inadvertently requested a QME evaluation in psychology ... and of course there are no neuropsyches on it. I was thinking of changing PTP's to Dr. Clark Smith, a quadruple certified (psychiatrist, neurologist, pain medicine, forensic psychiatrist) in San Diego who works out of Institutes of Health. I see he has some good reviews as an AME in the Listserv, and his office indicated he would treat with carrier authorization. Unfortunately there are few one star reviews on Google, so that drops his online ratings down, and I'm concerned my client's wife will balk. I'm also a little afraid of going out on a limb since I've never used him. The client's wife wants him to stay at Learining Services and is concerned about the change of treater. Learning Services say they have a lot of patients who stay there for treatment, but the designed PTP is outside, and they provide transport. Any thoughts? Joel Campbell, Valley Law Group - Fresno Anythoughts on this? I think we need a neuropsychiatrist or neuropsychologist, but the carrier won't agree to an AME. The multi-disciplinary team has been treating great, and my client's wife (who has a

"Joel Campbell" Date: March 13, 2025 1:43:00 PM Subject: Major TBI / Clark Smith as PTP / Neuropsyche / Need 100% Report Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Joel Campbell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings My client was electrocuted 19 months ago, leading to a major anoxic brain injury. He is treating in patient at Learning Services in Escondido. He is starting to plateau, and still needs 12-hour / day 1:1 care for basic ADLs, hygiene, eating, etc. He has huge cognitive, neurobehavioral, functional and physical deficits and requires 12-hour/day 1:1 care. Some time ago the PTP noted in a report that he would not be able to return to work and there is a conservatorship (but she didn't use all the language we need to prove up 100%). There is a PM&R and neuropsychologist on the treatment team, and both seemed like they would help me when I spoke to them privately. However, 1) a neuropsyche exam wasn't authorized by Paradigm (the outsourced NCM company) because it's not necessary for treatment; and 2) the doctor's aren't willing to write a PR-4, refer out for a PR-4, say he's permanently mentally incapacitated, or that he "is permanently precluded from work in any capacity. It seems like a requirement Learning Services places on the doctors who are working with them, likely to make sure they stay in the good graces of the insurance companies. I am concerned that we'll go down PQME hell, especially since my office staff inadvertently requested a QME evaluation in psychology ... and of course there are no neuropsyches on it. I was thinking of changing PTP's to Dr. Clark Smith, a quadruple certified (psychiatrist, neurologist, pain medicine, forensic psychiatrist) in San Diego who works out of Institutes of Health. I see he has some good reviews as an AME in the Listserv, and his office indicated he would treat with carrier authorization. Unfortunately there are few one star reviews on Google, so that drops his online ratings down, and I'm concerned my client's wife will balk. I'm also a little afraid of going out on a limb since I've never used him. The client's wife wants him to stay at Learining Services and is concerned about the change of treater. Learning Services say they have a lot of patients who stay there for treatment, but the designed PTP is outside, and they provide transport. Any thoughts? Joel Campbell, Valley Law Group - Fresno Anythoughts on this? I think we need a neuropsychiatrist or neuropsychologist, but the carrier won't agree to an AME. The multi-disciplinary team has been treating great, and my client's wife (who has a

"Dane P. Gilliam" Date: March 06, 2025 4:55:00 PM Subject: Re: NEUROPSYCH AME SUGGESTIONS NEAR CHULA VISTA/SAN DIEGO? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Another name to throw in is Thaler. I think he has a Riverside or Ontario office so not super far away from San Diego. 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: Thursday, March 06, 2025 1:17 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re:[lawnet] NEUROPSYCH AME SUGGESTIONS NEAR CHULA VISTA/SAN DIEGO? List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Schulman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Kodimer is great if you can get his office to respond. Whitehead is hit and miss. I find him conservative but others like him. Clark Smith is with Institutes of Health. There is also Catherine Ward. Using her for the first time. -----Original Message----- From: leslie_shaw1@hotmail.com Sent: March 05, 2025 6:33:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: NEUROPSYCH AME SUGGESTIONS NEAR CHULA VISTA/SAN DIEGO? Dan Whitehad Charles Kodimer Clark Smith Leslie S. Shaw, Esq. ​Law Office of Leslie S. Shaw A P.C. 8885 Rio San Diego Drive, Ste 265 San Diego, CA 92108 Ph: 619-683-2346 Fax: 619-683-2457 **************************************************** NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that may be confidential, protected by the attorney/client or other privileges, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Further, this e-mail may contain information that is proprietary and/or constitutes a trade secret. This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this communication, please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or any attached document is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this communication and any attached documents. ************************************************** ________________________________ From: Michelle Almary (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:28 AM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [lawnet] NEUROPSYCH AME SUGGESTIONS NEAR CHULA VISTA/SAN DIEGO? List: lawnet Sent By: Michelle Almary< mailto:michelle@odjaghianlaw.com > Reply To Sender< mailto:michelle@odjaghianlaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20NEUROPSYCH%20AME%20SUGGESTIONS%20NEAR%20CHULA%20VISTA%2FSAN%20DIEGO%3F > Reply To List< mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20NEUROPSYCH%20AME%20SUGGESTIONS%20NEAR%20CHULA%20VISTA%2FSAN%20DIEGO%3F > Search< http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Settings< http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > DA said no to Ponton, Tomaszewski, and Fernando Gonzalez. He proposed: Stacy Ann Aquipel, Takisha Corbett, Van Nguyen, and Angela Patino. Never heard of these neuropsychs. If anybody has any suggestions for Neuropsych AMEs near San Diego/Chula Vista, please advise! Thanks in advance

"Steve Schulman" Date: March 06, 2025 3:17:00 PM Subject: Re: NEUROPSYCH AME SUGGESTIONS NEAR CHULA VISTA/SAN DIEGO? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Schulman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Kodimer is great if you can get his office to respond. Whitehead is hit and miss. I find him conservative but others like him. Clark Smith is with Institutes of Health. There is also Catherine Ward. Using her for the first time. -----Original Message----- From: leslie_shaw1@hotmail.com Sent: March 05, 2025 6:33:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: NEUROPSYCH AME SUGGESTIONS NEAR CHULA VISTA/SAN DIEGO? Dan Whitehad Charles Kodimer Clark Smith Leslie S. Shaw, Esq. ​Law Office of Leslie S. Shaw A P.C. 8885 Rio San Diego Drive, Ste 265 San Diego, CA 92108 Ph: 619-683-2346 Fax: 619-683-2457 **************************************************** NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that may be confidential, protected by the attorney/client or other privileges, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Further, this e-mail may contain information that is proprietary and/or constitutes a trade secret. This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this communication, please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or any attached document is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this communication and any attached documents. ************************************************** ________________________________ From: Michelle Almary (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:28 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] NEUROPSYCH AME SUGGESTIONS NEAR CHULA VISTA/SAN DIEGO? List: lawnet Sent By: Michelle Almary<mailto:michelle@odjaghianlaw.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:michelle@odjaghianlaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20NEUROPSYCH%20AME%20SUGGESTIONS%20NEAR%20CHULA%20VISTA%2FSAN%20DIEGO%3F> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20NEUROPSYCH%20AME%20SUGGESTIONS%20NEAR%20CHULA%20VISTA%2FSAN%20DIEGO%3F> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> DA said no to Ponton, Tomaszewski, and Fernando Gonzalez. He proposed: Stacy Ann Aquipel, Takisha Corbett, Van Nguyen, and Angela Patino. Never heard of these neuropsychs. If anybody has any suggestions for Neuropsych AMEs near San Diego/Chula Vista, please advise! Thanks in advance

From: Michelle Almary (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:28 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] NEUROPSYCH AME SUGGESTIONS NEAR CHULA VISTA/SAN DIEGO?

Michael P. Georgariou II Attorney at Law Phone: (831) 449-8011

On Aug 8, 2025, at 1:01 PM, Bret Graham (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: