None

"Robyn Freiberg" Date: February 05, 2026 1:45:00 PM Subject: Re: quality p.t.p - San Diego Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Robyn Park Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I really like Dr. Joe Verna, chiropractor who is in Mission Valley.  His office email is chiro@usspineandsportchiro.com and phone number is (858) 264-1478.  Tell him and Yadira I say hi. Robyn Park Freiberg, Esq. Law Office of Robyn Park Freiberg, APC 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 500 San Diego, CA 92108 T: 619-855-0500 | F: 619-942-5656 Email: robyn@rpfreiberglaw.com Website: www.rpfreiberglaw.com NOTICE:  The information contained in this electronic mail and any attachments is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential, privileged, and/or proprietary information.  Any other use of these materials is strictly prohibited.  If you have received these materials in error, please notify me immediately by telephone and destroy all electronic, paper or other versions.  No representation is made by the sender that any e-mails and/or attachments are virus free, and are used at the intended recipient's sole risk.  Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. From: Paul Cowan (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 11:32 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] quality p.t.p - San Diego List: lawnet Sent By: Paul Cowan Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello.  Client recently moved to San Diego.  No mpn.  Any recommendations for a decent treater,  probably soft tissue back. Thanks, Paul Cowan,  Carson, ca

"Daniel Epperly" Date: December 02, 2024 7:53:00 PM Subject: Re: QME Pooja Chopra, M.D. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Daniel Epperly Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Did you end up getting a report from Pooja Chopra, M.D.? That name is on a panel I have right now with two others that have bad reviews. Dan Epperly Clovis / La Verna -----Original Message----- From: darin@mitchellandpowell.com Sent: June 10, 2024 7:13:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: QME Pooja Chopra, M.D. I drew Katherine Robb-Ramirez, Mark Bernhard, and Pooja Chopra. I have used the first two before, but I have not heard of Pooja Chopra. Anybody have any experience with this QME? -- Mitchell & Powell A Professional Law Corp. (Phone) 559.733.9898 / 559.733.5655 (Fax) www.mitchellandpowell.com

"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: September 01, 2023 12:03:00 PM Subject: Re: Can the WCAB Award 5814 penalties at an Expedited Hearing? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hell, it's like pulling teeth to get them to do it at a regular trial. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: September 01, 2023 11:27:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Can the WCAB Award 5814 penalties at an Expedited Hearing? Daniel, I don't think you need a case citation. An Exp Hrg is a Trial. A WCJ can entertain penalties and sanctions at a Trial. The Defendant has due process / notice / opportunity to be heard, plus the WCJ can enter evidence into the record and take testimony from Applicant, then leave the record open for Defense rebuttal witnesses - if any. However, that WCJ was who ordered penalties against a Defendant after an Exp Hrg is probably the only WCJ in California who has ever done it, or ever will. What I get at an Exp Hrg is the WCJ telling the DA to call CE and get authority for whatever. I NEVER get to a Trial. I do have this recent case on sanctions. I bet this experience scared the pants off that AA. Not having heard any further, we can't know what happened on remand. â–  Terri Scott, Applicant v. City of Los Angeles, PSI, administered by Tristar Risk Management, Defendants, [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fplus.lexis.com%2fapi%2fdocument%2fcollection%2fadministrative-materials%2fid%2f65JB-R761-JKHB-6258-00000-00%3fcite%3d2022%2520Cal.%2520Wrk.%2520Comp.%2520P.D.%2520LEXIS%2520107%26context%3d1530671&c=E,1,UxSCIUg85BfDiFJIVh7NlapQmuYN_puSEbxH4QYgAsomuSOq1u6tB9U2XfHWq_W_JXLwKv_aunRbvPPY8nXBBb3UYBi_gScqBG_7iNdepCVq4d38o-Ls8CI,&typo=1 ' 2022 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 107 ] Imposition of Sanctions-Due Process-WCAB, granting reconsideration, rescinded WCJ's order imposing sanctions of $1,500.00 against applicant's attorneys and awarding costs to defendant of $6,800.00 under Labor Code § 5813, based on WCJ's finding that applicant's attorneys engaged in conduct intentionally designed to harass defense counsel in order to obtain strategic litigation advantage, and WCAB returned matter to WCJ for evidentiary hearing on issue of sanctions, when WCAB recognized that applicant's attorneys must be given notice and opportunity to be heard at evidentiary hearing, consistent with due process, prior to imposition of sanctions, and concluded that instead of issuing notice of intention (NOI) to impose sanctions and determining sanctions issue based on applicant's attorneys' written objection to NOI, WCAB should have obtained pretrial conference statement from parties on sanction issue, held pretrial conference at which specific issues and stipulations on petitions could be framed, and held hearing, that because NOI's allegations originated with defendant's attorney and concerned conduct outside of court which WCJ did not observe, it did not fully apprise applicant's attorneys of evidence against them or provide meaningful opportunity for them to offer evidence in opposition to sanctions, and that on remand record requires further development as to sanction issue. [See generally Hanna, Cal. Law of Emp. Inj. and Workers' Comp. 2d § 23.15; Rassp & Herlick , California Workers' Compensation Law , Ch. 16, § 16.35.] Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fthe-compensation-law-center.business.site%2f&c=E,1,v3LpUKSQYe2L3QXIwRIrvLYO1Y6xDIGRx-bnaooVHlsXmWIk_4nttGZtqGGdyOEQLi6S2gkIxciRHYedQHsC1dQRBpvcyZyKmHy3Utp8oDREc8EBgkpdRwk8BnG8&typo=1 ' 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, August 31, 2023 11:19:32 PM Subject: [lawnet] Can the WCAB Award 5814 penalties at an Expedited Hearing? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:danepperlylaw@gmail.com ' Daniel Epperly ] [ mailto:danepperlylaw@gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20Can%20the%20WCAB%20Award%205814%20penalties%20at%20an%20Expedited%20Hearing%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Can%20the%20WCAB%20Award%205814%20penalties%20at%20an%20Expedited%20Hearing%3F ' Reply To List ] [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.caaa.org%2findex.cfm%3fpg%3dsearch&c=E,1,qR-Z4CTGgnLS70l_jE5UU9-0ormm5e0a1arQwshnXHQVkzGC6-tV_Yqrda7-2ipVWwAzA6g6CMffEl_14Tl35diVEL4woUivE6X7GkX6eg,,&typo=1 ' Search ] [ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.caaa.org%2findex.cfm%3fpg%3dlistviewer%26lsAction%3dlistSettings&c=E,1,QJApcSVfjjOQ5N5q9RykEc2vvnFvmPFYUj0hoCM6rFgcNXNAQK1J2L7H4sOTMZOINDeWkMsAveQDnji0mayHdY5Ku1c4DWytwmeAiAwA5mB21dSK&typo=1 ' Settings ] I recall a case being covered at CAAA recently holding the WCAB does have jurisdiction to award penalties at an Expedited Hearing. Does anybody have a citation for that case? Dan Epperly La Verna / Clovis

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: September 01, 2023 11:27:00 AM Subject: Re: Can the WCAB Award 5814 penalties at an Expedited Hearing? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Daniel, I don't think you need a case citation. An Exp Hrg is a Trial. A WCJ can entertain penalties and sanctions at a Trial. The Defendant has due process / notice / opportunity to be heard, plus the WCJ can enter evidence into the record and take testimony from Applicant, then leave the record open for Defense rebuttal witnesses - if any. However, that WCJ was who ordered penalties against a Defendant after an Exp Hrg is probably the only WCJ in California who has ever done it, or ever will. What I get at an Exp Hrg is the WCJ telling the DA to call CE and get authority for whatever. I NEVER get to a Trial. I do have this recent case on sanctions. I bet this experience scared the pants off that AA. Not having heard any further, we can't know what happened on remand. ■ Terri Scott, Applicant v. City of Los Angeles, PSI, administered by Tristar Risk Management, Defendants, 2022 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 107 Imposition of Sanctions—Due Process—WCAB, granting reconsideration, rescinded WCJ’s order imposing sanctions of $1,500.00 against applicant’s attorneys and awarding costs to defendant of $6,800.00 under Labor Code § 5813, based on WCJ’s finding that applicant’s attorneys engaged in conduct intentionally designed to harass defense counsel in order to obtain strategic litigation advantage, and WCAB returned matter to WCJ for evidentiary hearing on issue of sanctions, when WCAB recognized that applicant’s attorneys must be given notice and opportunity to be heard at evidentiary hearing, consistent with due process, prior to imposition of sanctions, and concluded that instead of issuing notice of intention (NOI) to impose sanctions and determining sanctions issue based on applicant’s attorneys’ written objection to NOI, WCAB should have obtained pretrial conference statement from parties on sanction issue, held pretrial conference at which specific issues and stipulations on petitions could be framed, and held hearing, that because NOI’s allegations originated with defendant’s attorney and concerned conduct outside of court which WCJ did not observe, it did not fully apprise applicant’s attorneys of evidence against them or provide meaningful opportunity for them to offer evidence in opposition to sanctions, and that on remand record requires further development as to sanction issue. [See generally Hanna, Cal. Law of Emp. Inj. and Workers’ Comp. 2d § 23.15; Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law, Ch. 16, § 16.35.] 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, August 31, 2023 11:19:32 PM Subject: [lawnet] Can the WCAB Award 5814 penalties at an Expedited Hearing? List: lawnet Sent By: Daniel Epperly Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I recall a case being covered at CAAA recently holding the WCAB does have jurisdiction to award penalties at an Expedited Hearing. Does anybody have a citation for that case? Dan Epperly La Verna / Clovis

Daniel Epperly Date: September 01, 2023 1:19:00 AM Subject: Can the WCAB Award 5814 penalties at an Expedited Hearing? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Daniel Epperly Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I recall a case being covered at CAAA recently holding the WCAB does have jurisdiction to award penalties at an Expedited Hearing. Does anybody have a citation for that case? Dan Epperly La Verna / Clovis

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: December 14, 2020 12:47:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: Wt. Gain & Decondtioning Rating- Help please Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Gerald Reese, Applicant v. Microdental Laboratories, American Home Assurance, Adjusted by AIG Claims Services, Defendants, 2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 625 (lexis.com), 2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 625 (Lexis Advance) Permanent Disability—Rating—AMA Guides —Deconditioning—WCAB rescinded WCJ’s finding that applicant suffered 45 percent permanent disability from 1/5/2006 industrial injury to his lumbar spine, knees, right ankle, and in form of sleep disorder, and remanded matter to WCJ to issue new rating instructions, when WCJ rated applicant’s permanent disability without including 10 percent whole person impairment (WPI) assigned by panel qualified medical evaluator for applicant’s 75 percent loss of exercise capacity/deconditioning, based on panel qualified medical evaluator’s analogy of applicant’s “deconditioning” to Class II cardiovascular impairment , and WCAB concluded that, because AMA Guides do not assess functional classifications of conditioning except in cardiovascular disease chapter , panel qualified medical evaluator was permitted under analysis in Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v.Milpitas Unified School District (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 1084 (Appeals Board en banc opinion), and Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. W.C.A.B. ( Guzman ) (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 808, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112, 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 837, and pursuant to express language in 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, to assess applicant’s WPI by analogy to cardiovascular impairment if such analogy most accurately reflected applicant’s level of impairment and was within “four corners” of AMA Guides , and, although WCJ found that loss of physical fitness or “deconditioning” is not a “body part” for purposes of finding ratable permanent disability under AMA Guides or Almaraz/Guzman analysis, WCAB determined that neither Labor Code § 4664, which requires assignment of permanent disability to body region , nor any other Labor Code provision mandates that permanent disability be assigned only to particular “body part.” ORTHOPEDIC INJURIES – DECONDITIONING (Version 1.0 5/ 9 / 08) AMA GUIDES REFERENCE: Chapter 5, beginning on page 107 DESCRIPTION OF INJURY/CONDITION: Prior to the enactment of SB899, orthopedic injuries were often plead and evaluated in a "two dimensional" manner – for example as a "knee injury' or "back in jury." However, with SB899's mandate to incorporate the AMA Guides the rating approach is now "three dimensional" – i.e. , the long term and widespread effects of injury may be significantly more complex than the original trauma. Development of an accurate rating now requires a radically different, more "wholistic" approach to pleading the case in the application for adjudication, and will often involve a multi-disciplinary development of the medical record. While each case is unique, allegations of "Internal", "Deconditioning", and "Shortness of Breath" should be considered for inclusion in the Application for Adjudication. This Tip examines one potential consequence of an orthopedic injury – the effects on the human body of de-conditioning that often follow physical injury. The basic concept is straightforward. An individual whose work involves relatively vigorous activity (such as a laborer, construction worker, warehouse person, truck driver making deliveries, or machine operator), and/or an individual with a similarly vigorous hobby or fitness activity (biking, swimming, skiing, tennis, etc.), sustains a significant industrial injury and consequently is rendered relatively sedentary thereafter. The injury could be to the low back or lower extremity, the upper spinal area, or in some cases, a severe upper extremity injury. The direct result of the injury a marked change from a an individual with a highly active lifestyle to someone who is able to engage in only minimal physical activity or who may even require an assistive device. Frequently such an individual will experience a significant weight gain but it should be noted that weight gain is not always present. Under the old rating schedule, many of the impacts caused by this change in lifestyle were subsumed in the assigned disability rating, but because these impacts can involve objective, measurable impairment they must be considered under the new AMA Guides rating approach. The basic concepts of an impairment analysis of de-conditioning are discussed in the AMA Guides beginning on page 107. Most importantly, note Table 5-12 wherein the Guides specifically notes that "VO2max [maximum oxygen consumption] may provide additional information in selected individuals when indicated." This concept is also discussed in section 5.2a, page 89 of the Guides . A qualified physician will be able to objectively quantify (or reliably estimate within a reasonable medical probability) the level of de-conditioning based on the metabolic expenditures of pre-injury abilities (occupational or leisure activities) versus the maximum energy expenditure achievable at the time of post-injury medical testing and analysis. An objective measure of an individual’s maximum energy expenditure achievable post-injury can be obtained by measuring the maximum oxygen consumption during cardiopulmonary exercise testing. This testing allows breath-by-breath analysis of inspired oxygen and expired carbon dioxide. The test measures the maximum capacity of the cardiopulmonary axis to extract oxygen from the ambient air and deliver oxygen to the tissues. Importantly, a wide variety of bodily systems must be in good working order in order to achieve adequate maximum oxygen consumption. Those systems include the upper airways, lungs, hematologic system (adequate red blood cells for carrying oxygen), blood vessels, muscles, and heart. The final row in table 5-12 (see page 107) of the Guides contains information regarding maximum oxygen consumption. This variable can be expressed in the manner obtained during CPET testing (direct measurement of an individual’s capacity to deliver oxygen to the tissues as expressed in ml/kg/min) or it can be measured in "METS." METS represents multiples of resting metabolic energy used for a given activity. One "MET" is considered 3.5 ml/kg/min of oxygen consumption. A 70 kg man who burns 1.2 kcal/min while sitting at rest uses approximately 3 METS while walking 4 km/hour (see page 26 of the AMA Guides ). For the pre-injury measurements, there is ample data regarding energy costs of various human activities that will allow the physician to estimate the individual’s pre-injury metabolic expenditure capacity based on an analysis of pre-injury activities. For example, the "Textbook of Work Physiology" (Astrand and Roland) page 507, Figure 17.2 provides one guide for physicians to identify typical energy expenditures for such activities as: Competitive Cross-Country skiing, running, swimming – 24 METS Climbing stairs with 14 lb load – 17 METS Exceptionally heavy manual labor – 14 METS Climbing stairs, heavy manual work – 11 METS Manual labor, gardening shoveling – 8 METS Light industry, walking, housework – 5 METS Another resource for estimating pre-injury metabolic expenditure capacity is Ainsworth BE. (2002, January) The Compendium of Physical Activities Tracking Guide, Prevention Research Center, Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina. http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf By comparing the pre-morbid energy expenditure with the post-injury energy expenditure the loss of pre-injury capacity can be objectively quantified. When orthopedic injuries result in significant de-conditioning, the physician should evaluate whether this individual merits impairment rating under Table 5-12. In cases of severe metabolic de-conditioning, as manifested by poor exercise tolerance, the impairment rating under Table 5-12 could rise to a class 3, meriting a 26-50% whole person impairment. The following hypotheticals are based upon actual cases: Hypothetical number 1 is a woman who worked in a catalogue department of a major retailer. She delivered boxes from various parts of a warehouse and moved those packages to a conveyor belt for labeling and shipping. She sustained a severe back injury in 1999. She developed diabetes and gained about 70 pounds, and now must rely on a motorized wheelchair when shopping. Upon medical evaluation she was unable to perform exercise testing in any way and only resting cardiovascular studies could be obtained. Based on this data it was determined that she was capable of expending only about 2 METS post injury. Evaluating her pre-injury capacity based on her job duties, under figure 17.2 of the "Textbook of Work Physiology" (see above) she was expending 7-9 METS. Thus, it was determined that she lost at least 67% of her pre-injury capacity for energy requiring physical activity (such as walking, jogging, recurrent lifting, etc.). Alternatively, using table 5-12 (page 107 in the Guides ), this individual merits a class 4 impairment rating of 60 - 70%. Hypothetical number 2 is a gentleman who fell approximately 8 feet while working as a heavy equipment operator on a construction site. He had engaged in such activities throughout his career. He sustained numerous musculoskeletal and spinal injuries when he fell. On exercise testing, he walked only briefly before terminating the exercise due to back pain and shortness of breath. He expended only 3.3 METS. Based upon figure 17.2, this individual’s capacity for physical activity declined by about 50% from pre-injury to post-injury status. Alternatively, under Table 5-12 he merits a class 4 impairment of approximately 51%. Hypothetical number 3 is a woman doing light to moderate work in a factor – she lifted bottles of chemicals several times per week. She sustained a injury in that manner which led to constantly increasing back pain over multiple years which in turn led to a sharp decrease in physical activity. She never returned to work after this injury which occurred when she was in her 50’s. On exercise testing, she was tested on a protocol specifically designed for debilitated individuals. She expended only 3.3 METS. Her maximum oxygen consumption was 14.9 ml/kg/min or 44% of the age-predicted maximum (see class 4 in table 5-12). However, she was obese (although she did not gain any significant amount of weight after the injury) and after adjusting for weight her maximum oxygen consumption was 1.322 liters/minute or 72% of the age-predicted maximum. Thus, in this case a class 4 impairment rating may not be appropriate because her non-industrial obesity artificially lowered the maximum oxygen consumption that would otherwise have been applicable. [Note: a physician can also "correct" these measurements for a patient’s obesity by expressing VO2 max in Litres/min which will remove the actual body weight from the calculation.] Nevertheless, even after considering her obesity, this individual still had a significant decline in physical activity based on measured parameters (or based on her change from a highly active life to a completely sedentary life). It appears that she lost approximately 50% of her pre-injury capacity for energy-requiring physical activities. She would likely be considered a class 2 impairment rating under table 5-12. Common compensable consequences De-conditioning leads to a host of bad medical outcomes including elevated lipids, diabetes, hypertension, increased inflammation, reflux, depression, sleep disturbances, etc. De- conditioning is also linked with increased morbidity and mortality (or illness and death). In fact, once the "momentum" of de-conditioning begins, (increasing weight, less activity, etc. ) it is very difficult to reverse the process without aggressive medical management. Documenation of ADL Impacts Unlike other injuries which may plateau over time, the effects of de-conditioning are a "moving target" because as the level of de-conditioning continues to progress, the number and severity of ADL impacts will continue to increase. Therefore, it is important to document the ADL impacts as close to MMI as possible. RATING APPROACHES AT MMI Generic rating As described above, the physician should conduct necessary testing to measure the worker’s post injury energy capacity, and compare this with the worker’s pre-injury capacity. Under Table 5-12 of the AMA Guides an impairment rating can be assigned based on the level of decline in the post-injury capacity. Rating by analogy and Direct ADL Rating A physician may determine that the Generic rating parameters adequately measure impairment for this topic. SAMPLE REPORTS AND DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS If you are a Regular CAAA member, you can get a password to access the Membership Services portion of the CAAA website (www.caaa.org) where you will find sample reports, deposition transcripts, and other materials related to impairment evaluations. This project is just now getting under way. CAAA welcomes any materials you have and are willing to contribute to this portion of the website including examples where a physician has largely ignored the facts and history in the case regarding de-conditioning when assigning a WPI rating. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Lawrence R. Whiting (lawnet listserver)" <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 8:24:21 AM Subject: Re:[lawnet] Re: Wt. Gain & Decondtioning Rating- Help please List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Also see City of LA v WCAB (Verna) 77 CCC 640 and US FIRE v WCAB (Bernasani) 85 CCC 222. Both are WD cases where rating exceeded the strict ortho b/c of deconditioning and weight gain with fees awarded for frivolous writ. If you have Lexis search "weight gain". -----Original Message----- From: lawjoelee@gmail.com Sent: December 13, 2020 7:16:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Wt. Gain & Decondtioning Rating- Help please Actually, I was able to open the attachments when I choose to open link in new tab. So nevermind. Thanks! On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 5:10 PM Joseph Lee wrote: > I have a cross examination of an internist PQME regarding various issues > including weight gain. Can you resend the Reese case attachment and the > other attachments on AMA Rating Deconditioning? I am unable to open the > attachments on prior email. Thank you > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:14 PM Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) <<br> > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > >> *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Hollie Rutkowski >> Reply To Sender >> >> Reply To List >> >> Search >> >> Settings >> >> >> Ron, I attached the Reese case and another blurb I have on AMA Rating >> Deconditioning. >> >> >> Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. >> >> >> >> The Compensation Law Center >> >> Sacramento, CA 95834 >> >> >> >> T:916.974.0424 >> >> F:916.974.0428 >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* "Jeffrey Linnetz, lawnet listserver" >> *To:* "Statewide List Service" >> *Sent:* Friday, January 10, 2020 12:59:07 PM >> *Subject:* [lawnet] Wt. Gain & Decondtioning Rating- Help please >> >> *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* ron ehrman >> Reply To Sender >> >> Reply To List >> >> Search >> >> Settings >> >> >> Internal PQME Nima (M) Yavari finds 45 lb Wt Gain post DOI industrial but >> states: >> >> "In regards to her weight gain, thoroughly reviewed the AMA Guides 5th >> Edition and was NOT able to find any mention of weight gain, obesity, or >> reconditioning anywhere within the guides. If an agreed upon table or >> chapter within the guides to assist in calculating such an impairment is >> found and suggested, I am more than happy to utilize it in my >> determination." >> >> Any suggestions for road to lead him down via written interrogatory or >> depo please? TYIA >> >> rpe >> la >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Joseph Lee, Esq. > > phone (626) 474-1120 ' fax (626) 899-4788 ' joseph@lawjoelee.com > > > *Law Office of Joseph Lee ' www.lawjoelee.com * > > PO Box 784 Pasadena, CA 91102 ' Mailing Address > > 1055 E. Colorado Blvd., 5th Floor Pasadena, CA 91106 ' Pasadena Office > > 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203 ' Glendale Office > > > > > > *Confidentiality Notice*: This message and its attachments may contain > information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure > and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. It > is not to be transmitted to or received by anyone other than the named > addressee (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named addressee). > Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without > express permission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it and all copies from > your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the > error by replying via email so that our address record can be corrected. > > *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure*: To ensure compliance with requirements > imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice > contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended > or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, > for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, > or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter or > transaction described herein. > -- Regards, Joseph Lee, Esq. phone (626) 474-1120 ' fax (626) 899-4788 ' joseph@lawjoelee.com *Law Office of Joseph Lee ' www.lawjoelee.com * PO Box 784 Pasadena, CA 91102 ' Mailing Address 1055 E. Colorado Blvd., 5th Floor Pasadena, CA 91106 ' Pasadena Office 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203 ' Glendale Office *Confidentiality Notice*: This message and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. It is not to be transmitted to or received by anyone other than the named addressee (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named addressee). Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it and all copies from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by replying via email so that our address record can be corrected. *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure*: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter or transaction described herein.

Here are the psychiatrists I have the choice of from the Coventry network. Case is post F and A, so this for treatment only;  Faye Brownfield, Rajiv Kumar, Daljit Mac, Pei Huey Nie, Arjun Reyes, Michael Kenly, Mustafa Humeid, Daniel Kim, Nina Patel, Peter Andersson, Justin Dominick, Alexander Niss, Bruce Steinberg,Lorne Label, Verna Porter, Indumathi  Raghaven, Safwan Alboiny. Thanks in advance.

Best regards, Laila Havre Jacobsma JACOBSMA LAW, APC Sent from my iPhone

In reviewing a very recent report from Malmuth, I see that he did not list life expectancy, work-life expectancy, or years' projection.  They have changed the methodology somewhat.  It is now called ACMOD - Alteration in Capacity to Meet Occupational Demands.  I believe that is based on new LC 4660.1.  The ACMOD looks at pre and post-injury jobs available, using a program called OASYS, and calculates percentages on what looks like that alone.

James Butler Attorney at Law Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC 415.341.9341 Phone 415.780.9929 Fax www.RLSlawyers.com ******************************************************************** NOTICE: This email and all attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and intended SOLELY for the recipients as identified in the "To," "Cc" and "Bcc" lines of this email. If you are not an intended recipient, your receipt of this email and its attachments is the result of an inadvertent disclosure or unauthorized transmittal.  Sender reserves and asserts all rights to confidentiality, including all privileges that may apply. Pursuant to those rights and privileges, immediately DELETE and DESTROY all copies of the email and its attachments, in whatever form, and immediately NOTIFY the sender of your receipt of this email. DO NOT review, copy, forward, or rely on the email and its attachments in any way. NO DUTIES ARE ASSUMED, INTENDED, OR CREATED BY THIS COMMUNICATION. If you have not executed a fee contract or an engagement letter, this firm does NOT represent you as your attorney. You are encouraged to retain counsel of your choice if you desire to do so. All rights of the sender for violations of the confidentiality and privileges applicable to this email and any attachments are expressly reserved. ********************************************************************

From: Laila Jacobsma (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 6:58 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Can someone please post these two cases? Thank you!

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: January 11, 2021 4:02:00 PM Subject: Looking for these cases.... Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I am looking for these cases on compensables consequence injuries - sleep apnea, weight gain, medication usage. Related to “Verna” case. 1. Bates v. Serologicals Corp, 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 194 2. Miller v. California State University, (2012) 2012 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 589 Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428

"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: December 14, 2020 10:24:00 AM Subject: Re: Re: Wt. Gain & Decondtioning Rating- Help please Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Also see City of LA v WCAB (Verna) 77 CCC 640 and US FIRE v WCAB (Bernasani) 85 CCC 222. Both are WD cases where rating exceeded the strict ortho b/c of deconditioning and weight gain with fees awarded for frivolous writ. If you have Lexis search "weight gain". -----Original Message----- From: lawjoelee@gmail.com Sent: December 13, 2020 7:16:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Wt. Gain & Decondtioning Rating- Help please Actually, I was able to open the attachments when I choose to open link in new tab. So nevermind. Thanks! On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 5:10 PM Joseph Lee wrote: > I have a cross examination of an internist PQME regarding various issues > including weight gain. Can you resend the Reese case attachment and the > other attachments on AMA Rating Deconditioning? I am unable to open the > attachments on prior email. Thank you > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:14 PM Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) <<br> > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > >> *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Hollie Rutkowski >> Reply To Sender >> >> Reply To List >> >> Search >> >> Settings >> >> >> Ron, I attached the Reese case and another blurb I have on AMA Rating >> Deconditioning. >> >> >> Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. >> >> >> >> The Compensation Law Center >> >> Sacramento, CA 95834 >> >> >> >> T:916.974.0424 >> >> F:916.974.0428 >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* "Jeffrey Linnetz, lawnet listserver" >> *To:* "Statewide List Service" >> *Sent:* Friday, January 10, 2020 12:59:07 PM >> *Subject:* [lawnet] Wt. Gain & Decondtioning Rating- Help please >> >> *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* ron ehrman >> Reply To Sender >> >> Reply To List >> >> Search >> >> Settings >> >> >> Internal PQME Nima (M) Yavari finds 45 lb Wt Gain post DOI industrial but >> states: >> >> "In regards to her weight gain, thoroughly reviewed the AMA Guides 5th >> Edition and was NOT able to find any mention of weight gain, obesity, or >> reconditioning anywhere within the guides. If an agreed upon table or >> chapter within the guides to assist in calculating such an impairment is >> found and suggested, I am more than happy to utilize it in my >> determination." >> >> Any suggestions for road to lead him down via written interrogatory or >> depo please? TYIA >> >> rpe >> la >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Joseph Lee, Esq. > > phone (626) 474-1120 ' fax (626) 899-4788 ' joseph@lawjoelee.com > > > *Law Office of Joseph Lee ' www.lawjoelee.com * > > PO Box 784 Pasadena, CA 91102 ' Mailing Address > > 1055 E. Colorado Blvd., 5th Floor Pasadena, CA 91106 ' Pasadena Office > > 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203 ' Glendale Office > > > > > > *Confidentiality Notice*: This message and its attachments may contain > information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure > and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. It > is not to be transmitted to or received by anyone other than the named > addressee (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named addressee). > Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without > express permission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it and all copies from > your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the > error by replying via email so that our address record can be corrected. > > *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure*: To ensure compliance with requirements > imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice > contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended > or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, > for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, > or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter or > transaction described herein. > -- Regards, Joseph Lee, Esq. phone (626) 474-1120 ' fax (626) 899-4788 ' joseph@lawjoelee.com *Law Office of Joseph Lee ' www.lawjoelee.com * PO Box 784 Pasadena, CA 91102 ' Mailing Address 1055 E. Colorado Blvd., 5th Floor Pasadena, CA 91106 ' Pasadena Office 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203 ' Glendale Office *Confidentiality Notice*: This message and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. It is not to be transmitted to or received by anyone other than the named addressee (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named addressee). Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it and all copies from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by replying via email so that our address record can be corrected. *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure*: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter or transaction described herein.

PMCworkcomp@aol.com Date: May 22, 2017 6:28:00 PM Subject: Re: FCE with Ergo Links at Carlsbad, CA -- any info Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Philip Cohen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I suggest Joe Verna. Philip M.Cohen,San Diego In a message dated 5/22/2017 3:37:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, listsender@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Inna Bimits Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Anybody has any experience with Ergo Links from Carlsbad, CA?  Any good FCE places down there? My client lives down there so need somebody closer to her than Alireza Bagherian and Rachel Feinberg. Inna Bimits Certified Specialist: Workers Comp Law Offices of John E. Hill Oakland

Laila Jacobsma Date: July 18, 2022 8:58:00 PM Subject: Can someone please post these two cases? Thank you! Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Laila Jacobsma Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings City of LA v WCAB (Verna) 77 CCC 640 US FIRE v WCAB (Bernasani) 85 CCC 222.