None

wrkcomp1@aol.com Date: September 16, 2026 1:18:00 PM Subject: Re: Brandon Haghverdian, John Santaniello or RichardClaveria? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: image001.png (17 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Scott Eadie Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Ibrahim and Dane: Thank you.  I'll consider PMR in the future. Scott Eadie Newport Beach On Wednesday, September 16, 2026 at 09:01:30 AM PDT, Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Dane Gilliam Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I don’t know Haghverdian, but Santaniello and Claveria both uber conservative. Claveria writes a better report than Santaniello. Thus, if you have a decent PTP, I may consider striking Claveria. Scott- there are more of us in OC now that request PMR panels instead of ortho if DA will not agree to reasonable AME.  Ortho QME is oversaturated and many of the candidates are new or very conservative. Something to consider moving forward. 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: Ibrahim Ellahib (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 8:43 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] Brandon Haghverdian, John Santaniello or RichardClaveria? List: lawnet Sent By: Ibrahim Ellahib Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Claveria is bad based on the archives but issued a reasonable report for my client when the evaluation was recorded.. Ibrahim Ellahib Anaheim On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 8:17 AM Scott Eadie (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Scott Eadie Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings CAAAleagues: Who should I strike/keep for a shoulder injury? Scott Eadie Newport Beach I don’t know Haghverdian, but Santaniello and Claveria both uber conservative. Claveria writes a better report than Santaniello. Thus, if you have a decent PTP, I may consider striking Claveria. Scott- there are more of us in OC now that request PMR panels instead of ortho if DA will not agree to reasonable AME.  Ortho QME is oversaturated and many of the candidates are new or very conservative. Something to consider moving forward. 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: Ibrahim Ellahib (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 8:43 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] Brandon Haghverdian, John Santaniello or RichardClaveria? List: lawnet Sent By: Ibrahim Ellahib Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Claveria is bad based on the archives but issued a reasonable report for my client when the evaluation was recorded.. Ibrahim Ellahib Anaheim On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 8:17 AM Scott Eadie (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Scott Eadie Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings CAAAleagues: Who should I strike/keep for a shoulder injury? Scott Eadie Newport Beach

"Dane P. Gilliam" Date: September 16, 2026 11:02:00 AM Subject: Re: Brandon Haghverdian, John Santaniello or RichardClaveria? Reply to list Reply to sender Print I don’t know Haghverdian, but Santaniello and Claveria both uber conservative. Claveria writes a better report than Santaniello. Thus, if you have a decent PTP, I may consider striking Claveria. Scott- there are more of us in OC now that request PMR panels instead of ortho if DA will not agree to reasonable AME.  Ortho QME is oversaturated and many of the candidates are new or very conservative. Something to consider moving forward. 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: Ibrahim Ellahib (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 8:43 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [lawnet] Brandon Haghverdian, John Santaniello or RichardClaveria? List: lawnet Sent By: Ibrahim Ellahib Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Claveria is bad based on the archives but issued a reasonable report for my client when the evaluation was recorded.. Ibrahim Ellahib Anaheim On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 8:17 AM Scott Eadie (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Scott Eadie Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings CAAAleagues: Who should I strike/keep for a shoulder injury? Scott Eadie Newport Beach

"Kevin Bryant" Date: September 09, 2026 1:00:00 PM Subject: Re: WILL THE QME BE REPLACED Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kevin Bryant Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings First, they likely waived any potential objection since the evaluation has already taken place. Second, force them to provide you with statutory or case law that says the mere fact that there is a familiar relationship (on its own) creates a basis for automatic disqualification. I’m not aware of any. 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: Steve Schulman (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 10:54 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] WILL THE QME BE REPLACED List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Schulman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings DA wants to get a new panel since the QME and PTP are father and son. What is interesting is that when the panel QME was chosen the DA did not request a new panel and the QME actually saw the patient. We received the report in April and the case was moving forward. Recently the DA tried to send the QME records but did not serve me first..I objected and the DA finally woke up and asked if the two were related....now he is trying to seek a replacement panel..... Has the DA waived his right to object and request a new panel or does he still have grounds to do so...any case law to prevent....I do not want a replacement panel if it can be avoided.... Thoughts..?? Steven B. Schulman Law  Office of Steven B. Schulman 13025 Danielson Street, Suite 260 Poway, CA 92064 (858) 863-8000, Fax (858) 863-6901

"Steven Schulman" Date: September 09, 2026 12:54:00 PM Subject: WILL THE QME BE REPLACED Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Schulman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings DA wants to get a new panel since the QME and PTP are father and son. What is interesting is that when the panel QME was chosen the DA did not request a new panel and the QME actually saw the patient. We received the report in April and the case was moving forward. Recently the DA tried to send the QME records but did not serve me first..I objected and the DA finally woke up and asked if the two were related....now he is trying to seek a replacement panel..... Has the DA waived his right to object and request a new panel or does he still have grounds to do so...any case law to prevent....I do not want a replacement panel if it can be avoided.... Thoughts..?? Steven B. Schulman Law  Office of Steven B. Schulman 13025 Danielson Street, Suite 260 Poway, CA 92064 (858) 863-8000, Fax (858) 863-6901

"Thomas Martin" Date: September 19, 2026 10:31:00 AM Subject: Re: Digest for September 18, 2026 Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Tom Martin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Brar is not sympathetic to applicants who have / had chemical dependency issues – not even under the South Coast Framing standard. Very challenging to depose in that type of case. From: California Applicants' Attorneys Association <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2026 2:15 AM To: Thomas Martin <thomas@thomasfmartinlaw.com> Subject: [lawnet] Digest for September 18, 2026 18 new messages posted by 14 members today. Statewide List Service | Daily Digest for Thomas September 18, 2026 In this issue... Brandon Haghverdian, John Santaniello or RichardClaveria? (6) A real doozy! (2) Psyche Panel Lists - Doctors are remote only (3) Caren or Brar? PQME for Arrhythmia Presumption (4) I have two panels of Southern California orthopedic qualified medical evaluators that I need input for GREGG HARTMAN, SONU AHUWALIA, and ALI AZAD the second panel is STEVEN PEARSON And DIMITRI DELAGRAMMATICAS (1) This is a test - email problems (4) Spine QME Panel in LA: Obiajulu Agha, M.D.; Ronald B. Perelman, M.D.; Todd R. Borenstein, M.D. (1) 100% Le Boeuf case (1) PQME Lucas McDonald - 2026 Orthopedic Report (1) Input regarding Southern California, orthopedic qualified, medical evaluators BICENTE BERNABE, MEHUL TAYLOR, and JENNIFER BECK (2) Brandon Haghverdian, John Santaniello or RichardClaveria? Started by Scott Eadie on 9/16/26 2 New Message(s), 6 Total Message(s) by 5 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Scott Eadie CAAAleagues: Who should I strike/keep for a shoulder injury? Scott Eadie Newport Beach Latest Responses: Full Discussion Online Reply from Edward F. Figaredo 9/18/26 7:03 pm CT In our books, Claveria has been horrible for a long time. Santaniello has also been bad to us, but he recently gave us a decent report. I don’t know Haghverdian, but I’d be willing to give him a shot instead of certain death with Claveria. Reply to Edward F. Figaredo Reply from Brandon Delpasand 9/18/26 7:05 pm CT Pretty sure I posted about Haghaverdian a few months ago. Reply to Brandon Delpasand A real doozy! Started by Tom Johnson on 9/17/26 1 New Message(s), 2 Total Message(s) by 2 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Tom Johnson Help colleagues. What would you do? I have a terminal client.I was able to relate a sarcoma in his foot.He treats for it now at Kaiser under medicare.CMS agreed to an MSA for 86k and it addresses a malignant sarcoma and orhtopedic injuries.Now the sarcoma has spread to the back and is inoperable.The client wants to C&R and so does the carrier.We have signed documents but he has agreed to give me some time.The carrier does not agree the back sarcoma is industrially related but it probably is.I am worried if we settle then Kaiser will stop treating the cancer in the back and the new care shifting delay might shorten his life when he needs care on an urgent basis.I am also worried his family might get hit with significant bills from Kaiser after he passes if there is an issue with the MSA.I advised him to stipulate and tried to explain everything with an interpreter but he is stubborn and difficult.Does anyone have experience dealing with Kaiser on something like this. I don't see them allowing him to cash pay with his MSA. Would they stop his care abruptly. My client asked me to call Kaiser and ask. I thought this might be the next best thing. No liens filed.Any advice is appreciated, Latest Responses: Full Discussion Online Reply from Jeffrey Linnetz 9/18/26 2:50 pm CT Tom, Years ago I had a client who was quadraplegic. I was going to C&R his case and had similar concerns about ongoing treatment. Somehow I was able to speak with an attorney who worked for Kaiser and (off the record) she told me that Kaiser didn't care about the terms of the settled WC case. They didn't look. This was about 10 years ago and I am not able to find the name of my contact person. My recent experience with Kaiser is similar. I have many clients who continue to treat with Kaiser after they C&R their cases without any problems. Make sure you document your file well including your advice against this course of action. Good luck. Reply to Jeffrey Linnetz Psyche Panel Lists - Doctors are remote only Started by Sandra Gomes on 9/17/26 1 New Message(s), 3 Total Message(s) by 3 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Sandra Gomes I am on my second psyche panel list, where 2 out of the 3 doctors are remote. I was going to strike one of the remote doctors, but I am wondering if it is incumbent on defendants to strike the other remote doctor if they object to remote exams. The chances of getting a panel list of psych doctors who do not do remote exams seem slim, given the two panels received so far. All of the doctors are new. The defendant in this case is horrible and fights and stalls everything, so there is no way he would agree to do a remote exam.Your thoughts are appreciated. Thank you. Latest Responses: Full Discussion Online Reply from Terence Tungseth 9/18/26 12:03 pm CT I prefer and all but insist on an in-person evaluation by the QME when the issue is psyche. In my opinion, allowing the Applicant to Zoom doesn't provide the appropriate environment, so that the Applicant takes the evaluation as seriously as they should, proper rapport is all but impossible, and the Doctor doesn't have the full opportunity to observe the overall demeanor of the Applicant as they tell their story.Two out of two times so far this year I have pushed back and gotten the psyche QME who "does not perform" in-person evaluations to relent and to actually do the in-person evaluation.While I know that some psyche QMEs will "announce" that they "do not do" in-person psyche evaluations - remote evaluations are supposed to be the exception - and not the rule. Per Reg Sec. 46.3(a)(2) require, in part: 1. An Agreement between the parties (in writing); 2. The evaluation is consistent with appropriate and medical practice in the field; 3. The Doctor attests in writing that an in-person evaluation is not necessary.In both occasions I have gone through the strike process - and when advised that the QME "doesn't do" in-person exams - I have advised the staff that the facts of the case and this particular Applicant would be best served by an in-person exam, that we aren't prone to agree to a remote eval, but at first we need the attestation from the Doctor as to #2 and #3, and also happen to mention that the Medical Unit would have to be advised that it is the QME who won't do the in-person exam - that the Applicant prefers the in-person exam.And lo and behold they have been willing to provide in-person dates.I would prefer that the laziness of the QME not be to the detriment of the Applicant.I have heard that the Medical Unit has issued panels indicating that the QME does telemedicine evaluations. I recall reading somewhere that is listed to indicate the QMEs "preference" but that it is supposedly non-binding and isn't meant to means that the Reg doesn't apply. I personally haven't seen that noted on the lists that I have received - we have become aware at the time of the initial call.Good luck. Reply to Terence Tungseth Caren or Brar? PQME for Arrhythmia Presumption Started by Jim Hopkins on 9/18/26 4 New Message(s), 4 Total Message(s) by 4 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Jim Hopkins Ramandeep Brar has big fans from her LAPD reporting. Jeffrey Caren has delivered as expected in my limited exposures.San Diego Applicant, age 42, police officer, has his pick of the two. Denied Presumption claim for new-onset tachycardia. Which would you recommend he selects? Latest Responses: Full Discussion Online Reply from Alan Snitzer 9/18/26 10:39 am CT Jim, we, and many of our fellow police attys up in LA, stopped using Caren a couple years ago.  Very nice, and smart guy, but he's unapologetically become extremely conservative the last few years. He told me he's "always been conservative," but I said at least in the past, he'd been reasonable, which many of us feel he no longer is. Brar is actually an electrophysiologist (her specialty within cardiology) so your arrhythmia case is right up her alley. She's also a very nice lady and very smart,  and though we had to "work with her" initially to make sure she "got it", she's been doing a good job both as a treater and an AME. She understands the presumptions. Reply to Alan Snitzer Reply from Dane Gilliam 9/18/26 11:28 am CT Brar has been good to us on non-public safety cases as both a QME and a treater. Reply to Dane Gilliam Reply from Bret Graham 9/18/26 12:13 pm CT CAREN has become pure defense over the last few years. AS Alan and Dane said, Brar is good for us. Reply to Bret Graham I have two panels of Southern California orthopedic qualified medical evaluators that I need input for GREGG HARTMAN, SONU AHUWALIA, and ALI AZAD the second panel is STEVEN PEARSON And DIMITRI DELAGRAMMATICAS Started by Larry D. Rosenstein on 9/18/26 1 New Message(s), 1 Total Message(s) by 1 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Larry D. Rosenstein Thank you in advance for all of your wisdom and response From, This is a test - email problems Started by Hollie Rutkowski on 9/18/26 4 New Message(s), 4 Total Message(s) by 4 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Hollie Rutkowski test Latest Responses: Full Discussion Online Reply from Brandon Delpasand 9/18/26 12:55 pm CT Seems to be working Sent from my iPhone Reply to Brandon Delpasand Reply from Maria E. Guevara 9/18/26 1:07 pm CT Received. Reply to Maria E. Guevara Reply from Kimberley J. Pryor 9/18/26 2:39 pm CT Brourman is OFF my list. He "advertised" his "Sharp" doctors as alternatives to my AMES in a CRPS case. So done with him. Details upon request. FYI and warning: Mike Grange is no longer representing him or Sharp. extrapolate what you will from that. Reply to Kimberley J. Pryor Spine QME Panel in LA: Obiajulu Agha, M.D.; Ronald B. Perelman, M.D.; Todd R. Borenstein, M.D. Started by Scott Solis on 9/18/26 1 New Message(s), 1 Total Message(s) by 1 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Scott Solis Issue is the back for a 10 year CT.  Not particularly complex.  I would be happy with Perelman. Nothing to speak of in Archives about Agha or Borenstein. Borenstein, from Pasadena, is a foot and ankle doctor whom I have as the PQME for a knee case.  In a supp. rpt. he is insisting he needs standing x-rays, which I appreciate b/c it means he knows how to rate knees. Agha is young.  Harvard undergrad, where he played soccer, UCSF Med School, and coauthored several journal articles, most addressing spine.  Seems to be based out of San Diego. Has anyone had experience with Borenstein or Agha?  I need to strike one of them.  Thanks. 100% Le Boeuf case Started by Felipe Hueso on 9/18/26 1 New Message(s), 1 Total Message(s) by 1 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Felipe Hueso Need reference materials for demand letter and billing. PQME Lucas McDonald - 2026 Orthopedic Report Started by Jim Hopkins on 9/18/26 1 New Message(s), 1 Total Message(s) by 1 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Jim Hopkins There are multiple request posts about unknown orthopedic Panelist Lucas McDonald. I had not seen the name until reading today a new report written for a pro per veteran police officer in their late 40's. Here is a brief overview:* received no cover letter* received only PT records only from 2026.* found no CT or specific injury (shoulder)* didn't know if the exam regarded a specific or CT claim* blamed all of the significant findings on a "2011 injury" for which there was no shoulder claim filed, no evidence of treatment rendered then, or since then, for that.* etc.It was written as a Take Nothing finality. No requests for anything while noting near the end of the 23 pages that a supplemental report could be written if a trier of fact found the need. Input regarding Southern California, orthopedic qualified, medical evaluators BICENTE BERNABE, MEHUL TAYLOR, and JENNIFER BECK Started by Larry D. Rosenstein on 9/18/26 2 New Message(s), 2 Total Message(s) by 2 Member(s) Full Discussion Reply to Entire List Reply to Larry D. Rosenstein All input will be appreciated. I believe that the review is concerningl BERNABE NTAYLOR have been negative. I do not know Dr. Beck. I look forward to responses and thank you. From, Latest Responses: Full Discussion Online Reply from Brandon Delpasand 9/18/26 5:30 pm CT HI Larry, I have posted about Bernabe "Vincente". He is horrible but will ruin himself on cross reports will be gargbage and most judges at VNO are familiar with his BS reports. Reply to Brandon Delpasand Browse Archives New Thread Search Archives My List Settings The views and opinions expressed on CAAA listserves are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of CAAA. NOTICE: This email contains PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information and is intended only for the sole use of CAAA’s Regular Membership per the Lawnet/Listserve Agreement. If you are not an intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying of this email or the information contained in it or attached to it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the CAAA Administrator at admin@caaa.org . Thank you. Powered by: TrialSmith, Inc . To unsubscribe from this list, send an email or edit your settings . California Applicants' Attorneys Association 1303 J Street, Suite 420 | Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 444-5155 | www.caaa.org

HI Larry, I have posted about Bernabe "Vincente". He is horrible but will ruin himself on cross reports will be gargbage and most judges at VNO are familiar with his BS reports.

"Sandra Gomes" Date: September 17, 2026 5:55:00 PM Subject: Re: Questions on next steps for SIBTF claim Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Sandra Gomes Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you all. I look forward to the class Jason. -----Original Message----- From: aksesq@gmail.com Sent: September 16, 2026 9:00:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Questions on next steps for SIBTF claim Hi, FWIW, I had a claim where SIBTF accepted the historical vision scores as evidence of the pre-existing impairment without getting a QME, but certain claims examiners there are more difficult about such things. Still, if SIBTF wants to save money, it does seem odd to pay a QME just to say they reviewed the prior vision tests and they are correct. Your client is legally blind. Maybe you should keep it simple, skip the voc evidence, and claim 100% against SIBTF under LC 4662(a)(2). On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 11:00 AM Sandra Gomes (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Sandra Gomes <sgomes@sgomeslaw.com> > Reply To Sender > <sgomes@sgomeslaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20Questions%20on%20next%20steps%20for%20SIBTF%20claim> > Reply To List > <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Questions%20on%20next%20steps%20for%20SIBTF%20claim> > Search <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> > Settings > <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> > > I have a case that I am pursuing a SIBTF case on. The applicant has > preexisting significant vision loss of 20/320 and 20/250 for each eye. Do I > have to get an Ophthalmology PQME on this case? If so, how do I get a PQME > for an SIBTF case? > Also, is there any verdict on whether the report of a VE can be used to > establish 100% disability for my client in the SIBTF claim? If I have to > use the CVC, I don't believe my client would get to 100%. > > Your input is appreciated. > > Sandra Gomes > Sacramento > > -- Andrew K. Shaffer BORAH & SHAFFER 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd., #230 Cupertino, CA 95014 408-996-8650

"Joel Campbell" Date: September 14, 2026 3:57:00 PM Subject: QME John Larsen Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Joel Campbell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a potential client who worked for Cal Fire and has a denied CT to the knees. Currently in pro per, she has a QME evaluation set with Dr. John Larsen, who I haven't seen in a long time but I remember being liberal. CAAA indicates everyone though he retired, but is now back, and no one seems to have had much experience with him since his return. Considering potential for getting a bad Romero panel, unless anyone has heard back things about Larsen, I'm inclined to recomend going forward with the exam and seeking representation afteward. Any updated information on Larsen? I just don't want to find out that upon his return to comp he's now changed stripes and is super conservative. Joel Campbell Valley Law Group, PC - Fresno

lupofflaw@aol.com Date: September 10, 2026 1:11:00 PM Subject: Re: WILL THE QME BE REPLACED Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: David Lupoff Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings DA violated LC 4062.3, ex parte communication by sending med records to qme, and now they're trying to file for a new panel because of the relationship between qme and ptp?  good luck, no timely objection. Law Offices of David B. Lupoff 15915 Ventura Blvd. Penthouse 4 Encino, CA 91436 P. 818.385.0520 F. 818.986.1657 NOTICE: This electronic mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2522, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank You. Law Offices of David B. Lupoff. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by e-mail will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that the Law Offices of David B. Lupoff and its lawyers do not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for your case or potential case. On Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 09:05:20 PM PDT, Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Guy Medford Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings There is case guidance about objecting within a reasonable amount of time, and a reg that says so too. Moreover, waiting until after the report is received will be fatal. Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 1:50 PM, Lawrence R. Whiting (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Laches? -----Original Message----- From: sbshammer@aol.com Sent: September 09, 2026 12:54:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: WILL THE QME BE REPLACED DA wants to get a new panel since the QME and PTP are father and son. What is interesting is that when the panel QME was chosen the DA did not request a new panel and the QME actually saw the patient. We received the report in April and the case was moving forward. Recently the DA tried to send the QME records but did not serve me first..I objected and the DA finally woke up and asked if the two were related....now he is trying to seek a replacement panel..... Has the DA waived his right to object and request a new panel or does he still have grounds to do so...any case law to prevent....I do not want a replacement panel if it can be avoided.... Thoughts..?? Steven B. SchulmanLaw  Office of Steven B. Schulman13025 Danielson Street, Suite 260Poway, CA 92064(858) 863-8000, Fax (858) 863-6901

"Guy Medford" Date: September 09, 2026 11:06:00 PM Subject: Re: WILL THE QME BE REPLACED Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Guy Medford Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings There is case guidance about objecting within a reasonable amount of time, and a reg that says so too. Moreover, waiting until after the report is received will be fatal. Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 1:50 PM, Lawrence R. Whiting (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Laches? -----Original Message----- From: sbshammer@aol.com Sent: September 09, 2026 12:54:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: WILL THE QME BE REPLACED DA wants to get a new panel since the QME and PTP are father and son. What is interesting is that when the panel QME was chosen the DA did not request a new panel and the QME actually saw the patient. We received the report in April and the case was moving forward. Recently the DA tried to send the QME records but did not serve me first..I objected and the DA finally woke up and asked if the two were related....now he is trying to seek a replacement panel..... Has the DA waived his right to object and request a new panel or does he still have grounds to do so...any case law to prevent....I do not want a replacement panel if it can be avoided.... Thoughts..?? Steven B. SchulmanLaw  Office of Steven B. Schulman13025 Danielson Street, Suite 260Poway, CA 92064(858) 863-8000, Fax (858) 863-6901

On Sep 14, 2026, at 2:31 PM, Erin Scharg (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:

"Brian A. Grafstrom" Date: September 09, 2026 2:48:00 PM Subject: Re: WILL THE QME BE REPLACED Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Grafstrom Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings They waived their objection when they failed to object earlier --- at a bare minimum, before the first report was received.  Let me guess --- that first report helps your client more than it helps Defense, right?  At this point, they’re doctor shopping. From: Steve Schulman (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 10:54 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] WILL THE QME BE REPLACED List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Schulman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings DA wants to get a new panel since the QME and PTP are father and son. What is interesting is that when the panel QME was chosen the DA did not request a new panel and the QME actually saw the patient. We received the report in April and the case was moving forward. Recently the DA tried to send the QME records but did not serve me first..I objected and the DA finally woke up and asked if the two were related....now he is trying to seek a replacement panel..... Has the DA waived his right to object and request a new panel or does he still have grounds to do so...any case law to prevent....I do not want a replacement panel if it can be avoided.... Thoughts..?? Steven B. Schulman Law  Office of Steven B. Schulman 13025 Danielson Street, Suite 260 Poway, CA 92064 (858) 863-8000, Fax (858) 863-6901

"Robert Skrinyaz" Date: September 09, 2026 9:32:00 AM Subject: Re: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Robert Skrinyaz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Reversions are negotiable. Defense will often say that they aren't, but it is frequently possible to claw back at least part of any remaining funds to Applicants' estates in those clauses. I encourage everyone to normalize this in otherwise 100% reversion MSAs! -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: August 27, 2026 2:16:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion Kimberly, I asked The Hartford DA about CMS finding a higher amount than The Hartford's MSA now that the parties have a C&R based on the now useless MSA. She claims that The Hartford will ask CMS for a re-eval after tinkering with its MSA to get CMS to agree to a lower amount, which, of course, does not explain how The Hartford resolves the C&R amount. Supposedly, The Hartford does not do non-submit MSAs. I don't believe it for a minute. I find The Hartford to be the least credible insurance company I have dealt with, on par with the worst TPAs. 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: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 1:14:11 PM Subject: Re:[lawnet] The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:kjpcaaa@kjpryorlaw.com ' Kimberley J. Pryor ] [ mailto:kjpcaaa@kjpryorlaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Hartford%20does%20not%20allow%20self-admin%20MSA%20so%20every%20MSA%20has%20a%20reversion ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20The%20Hartford%20does%20not%20allow%20self-admin%20MSA%20so%20every%20MSA%20has%20a%20reversion ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Hartford proposed MSA $33K, CMS approved that MSA at $340K ... yeah KJ Pryor, Esq. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: August 26, 2026 11:28:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion I just got done with a trial (did not go forward) in which DA that The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion back to The Hartford. I told DA I was not aware that a Defendant can refuse to allow a Claimant to self-admin MSA to avoid the reversion. She also says that with regard to the MSA in my case that is from February 2025, 1.6 years ago, that The Hartford will not submit an MSA to CMS until the parties have already agreed on a C&R. This means that The Hartford will not get CMS approval of an MSA until the parties have already agreed to The Hartford's MSA amount. 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

On Sep 4, 2026, at 3:07 PM, Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:

"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: August 30, 2026 3:49:00 PM Subject: Re: Continuity of Care Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Is private insurance an option? Alternatively, is a different comp doctor an option? If neither option is available, how much is the difference? Something you could pay and file a lien against app's recovery? Alternatively, find a doctor that will treat at the statutory rate, even if out of state and demand travel/lodging expense? (that may encourage the CA to cooperate.) -----Original Message----- From: eman@yazdchilaw.com Sent: August 27, 2026 4:46:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Continuity of Care I've had multiple cases where we've tried to force the carrier to authorize private fee agreement for neuro-optometrist. Sometimes they cave before EH, but those that have proceeded I have received push-back from the WCJ that they can't force the carrier to pre-auth set fees. The doctor can choose to treat, but they can't demand pre-approval of rates. IW doesn't have jurisdiction to demand they be paid a certain rate, that's for IBR (blah blah blah). Meanwhile, no doctor will the IW and they're denied care because carrier has nowhere else to send them to. Carrier says they'll auth the non-MPN treatment, but not beyond fee schedule… So now we just still set them all and make the DA show up and explain to WCJ that they don't think client should get treatment and sometimes WCJ will help get DA to get auth… it doesn't hurt to set it. On the continuity of care issue, I think you have a decent argument to keep the non-MPN provider, I think a more difficult time to get auth at the provider's fee agreement. From: Jimmy Cabral (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 2:22 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Continuity of Care List: lawnet Sent By: Jimmy Cabral<mailto:jimmy@cabrallawgroup.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:jimmy@cabrallawgroup.com?subject=Re%3A%20Continuity%20of%20Care> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Continuity%20of%20Care> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> Admitted 2021 head injury, TBI with post-traumatic vision dysfunction. My client has treated for more than three years with a neuro-optometrist who is out of MPN. The carrier signed the non-MPN neuro-optometrist's fee agreement annually from 2023 to 2025. No comparable in-MPN provider has ever been identified or offered. This year, without notice, the carrier (new claims adjuster) refused to sign the non-MPN neuro-optometrist's fee agreement. The neuro-optometrist continued to see my client three more times out of kindness and submitted RFAs that the carrier sent to UR. The neuro-optometrist has stopped treating my client because of the fee agreement issue. UR approved 12 sessions with the neuro-optometrist. Zero of the 12 sessions have been provided. Without the signed fee agreement, the neuro-optometrist won't see my client. Past experience has taught me that the Board will not order the carrier to execute a private fee agreement. But here we have UR-approved treatment with a doctor that has been treating my client for more than three years. My initial thought is to argue that my client has a serious chronic condition and that this is tantamount to a continuity-of-care scenario under 4616.2 and 9767.10. Until the carrier identifies a comparable MPN provider, it must pay for the treatment. I am venued at the lovely San Diego Board. Looking forward to your collective thoughts. Thank you.

cognitorsj@aol.com Date: August 27, 2026 8:45:00 PM Subject: Re: Continuity of Care Read Gonzalez v Weslar Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: gonzalez v. weslar_ inc._ 2020 cal. wrk. comp. p.d. lex (1) - sanctions threatened.docx (79 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings This case might help. It also has a few accurate things to say about Charles Brian Everett and CBE law. Mike Richter Campbell In a message dated 8/27/2026 2:22:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Jimmy Cabral Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Admitted 2021 head injury, TBI with post-traumatic vision dysfunction. My client has treated for more than three years with a neuro-optometrist who is out of MPN. The carrier signed the non-MPN neuro-optometrist's fee agreement annually from 2023 to 2025. No comparable in-MPN provider has ever been identified or offered. This year, without notice, the carrier (new claims adjuster) refused to sign the non-MPN neuro-optometrist's fee agreement. The neuro-optometrist continued to see my client three more times out of kindness and submitted RFAs that the carrier sent to UR. The neuro-optometrist has stopped treating my client because of the fee agreement issue. UR approved 12 sessions with the neuro-optometrist. Zero of the 12 sessions have been provided. Without the signed fee agreement, the neuro-optometrist won't see my client. Past experience has taught me that the Board will not order the carrier to execute a private fee agreement. But here we have UR-approved treatment with a doctor that has been treating my client for more than three years. My initial thought is to argue that my client has a serious chronic condition and that this is tantamount to a continuity-of-care scenario under 4616.2 and 9767.10. Until the carrier identifies a comparable MPN provider, it must pay for the treatment. I am venued at the lovely San Diego Board. Looking forward to your collective thoughts. Thank you.

"Eman Yazdchi" Date: August 27, 2026 4:46:00 PM Subject: Re: Continuity of Care Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Eman Yazdchi Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I’ve had multiple cases where we’ve tried to force the carrier to authorize private fee agreement for neuro-optometrist. Sometimes they cave before EH, but those that have proceeded I have received push-back from the WCJ that they can’t force the carrier to pre-auth set fees. The doctor can choose to treat, but they can’t demand pre-approval of rates. IW doesn’t have jurisdiction to demand they be paid a certain rate, that’s for IBR (blah blah blah). Meanwhile, no doctor will the IW and they’re denied care because carrier has nowhere else to send them to. Carrier says they’ll auth the non-MPN treatment, but not beyond fee schedule… So now we just still set them all and make the DA show up and explain to WCJ that they don’t think client should get treatment and sometimes WCJ will help get DA to get auth… it doesn’t hurt to set it. On the continuity of care issue, I think you have a decent argument to keep the non-MPN provider, I think a more difficult time to get auth at the provider’s fee agreement. From: Jimmy Cabral (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 2:22 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Continuity of Care List: lawnet Sent By: Jimmy Cabral Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Admitted 2021 head injury, TBI with post-traumatic vision dysfunction. My client has treated for more than three years with a neuro-optometrist who is out of MPN. The carrier signed the non-MPN neuro-optometrist's fee agreement annually from 2023 to 2025. No comparable in-MPN provider has ever been identified or offered. This year, without notice, the carrier (new claims adjuster) refused to sign the non-MPN neuro-optometrist's fee agreement. The neuro-optometrist continued to see my client three more times out of kindness and submitted RFAs that the carrier sent to UR. The neuro-optometrist has stopped treating my client because of the fee agreement issue. UR approved 12 sessions with the neuro-optometrist. Zero of the 12 sessions have been provided. Without the signed fee agreement, the neuro-optometrist won't see my client. Past experience has taught me that the Board will not order the carrier to execute a private fee agreement. But here we have UR-approved treatment with a doctor that has been treating my client for more than three years. My initial thought is to argue that my client has a serious chronic condition and that this is tantamount to a continuity-of-care scenario under 4616.2 and 9767.10. Until the carrier identifies a comparable MPN provider, it must pay for the treatment. I am venued at the lovely San Diego Board. Looking forward to your collective thoughts. Thank you.

"Jimmy Cabral" Date: August 27, 2026 4:22:00 PM Subject: Continuity of Care Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Jimmy Cabral Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Admitted 2021 head injury, TBI with post-traumatic vision dysfunction. My client has treated for more than three years with a neuro-optometrist who is out of MPN. The carrier signed the non-MPN neuro-optometrist's fee agreement annually from 2023 to 2025. No comparable in-MPN provider has ever been identified or offered. This year, without notice, the carrier (new claims adjuster) refused to sign the non-MPN neuro-optometrist's fee agreement. The neuro-optometrist continued to see my client three more times out of kindness and submitted RFAs that the carrier sent to UR. The neuro-optometrist has stopped treating my client because of the fee agreement issue. UR approved 12 sessions with the neuro-optometrist. Zero of the 12 sessions have been provided. Without the signed fee agreement, the neuro-optometrist won't see my client. Past experience has taught me that the Board will not order the carrier to execute a private fee agreement. But here we have UR-approved treatment with a doctor that has been treating my client for more than three years. My initial thought is to argue that my client has a serious chronic condition and that this is tantamount to a continuity-of-care scenario under 4616.2 and 9767.10. Until the carrier identifies a comparable MPN provider, it must pay for the treatment. I am venued at the lovely San Diego Board. Looking forward to your collective thoughts. Thank you.

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: August 27, 2026 2:16:00 PM Subject: Re: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Kimberly, I asked The Hartford DA about CMS finding a higher amount than The Hartford's MSA now that the parties have a C&R based on the now useless MSA. She claims that The Hartford will ask CMS for a re-eval after tinkering with its MSA to get CMS to agree to a lower amount, which, of course, does not explain how The Hartford resolves the C&R amount. Supposedly, The Hartford does not do non-submit MSAs. I don't believe it for a minute. I find The Hartford to be the least credible insurance company I have dealt with, on par with the worst TPAs. 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: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 1:14:11 PM Subject: Re:[lawnet] The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hartford proposed MSA $33K, CMS approved that MSA at $340K ... yeah KJ Pryor, Esq. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: August 26, 2026 11:28:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion I just got done with a trial (did not go forward) in which DA that The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion back to The Hartford. I told DA I was not aware that a Defendant can refuse to allow a Claimant to self-admin MSA to avoid the reversion. She also says that with regard to the MSA in my case that is from February 2025, 1.6 years ago, that The Hartford will not submit an MSA to CMS until the parties have already agreed on a C&R. This means that The Hartford will not get CMS approval of an MSA until the parties have already agreed to The Hartford's MSA amount. 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

cognitorsj@aol.com Date: August 26, 2026 10:26:00 PM Subject: Re: defendant is seeking a protectie order Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I would tell your client's friend, in a friendly manner, to SHUT UP! He's not helping your client. He's not moving the case forward. He's putting himself in the center of a target for a civil slander action. He isn't a litigant, so the WCJ cannot enjoin him from talking because it doesn't have jurisdiction over him. But if the Defense wants to sue him, or first give him a cease and desist order, that might work. Another thing D could do is ask the WCJ to seal all the proceedings in the case.  That wouldn't do you or your client much good either. I refer you back to line #1. Mike Richter Campbell In a message dated 8/26/2026 7:28:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Karen Steinitz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello friends, Has anyone here had a defendant seek a protective order about statements being made publicly? I have a psyche case with some related litigation going on outside WC, and there is a very vocal friend/advocate of my client who I'd call a bit of a loud mouth. This person has made public statements about the employer & board members discussing my client's case stating they have costly battles ahead & should lose their jobs. One of those statements happened right before I was scheduled to depose a manager and defendant has now filed for a protective order. I can't imagine how such an order would even be enforced but I'd like to do an objection. Any input is greatly appreciated. Karen Shrira Steinitz San Mateo Galine Frye Fitting & Frangos

"Kimberley J. Pryor" Date: August 26, 2026 3:14:00 PM Subject: Re: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hartford proposed MSA $33K, CMS approved that MSA at $340K ... yeah KJ Pryor, Esq. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: August 26, 2026 11:28:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion I just got done with a trial (did not go forward) in which DA that The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion back to The Hartford. I told DA I was not aware that a Defendant can refuse to allow a Claimant to self-admin MSA to avoid the reversion. She also says that with regard to the MSA in my case that is from February 2025, 1.6 years ago, that The Hartford will not submit an MSA to CMS until the parties have already agreed on a C&R. This means that The Hartford will not get CMS approval of an MSA until the parties have already agreed to The Hartford's MSA amount. 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

"Kevin Bryant" Date: August 26, 2026 1:41:00 PM Subject: Re: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kevin Bryant Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings That is actually a very good way to address the reversionary interest issue from Applicant’s perspective. I think I’m going to steal it for cases where this becomes an issue. 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: Roger T. Murphy (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 11:38 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion List: lawnet Sent By: Roger T. Murphy Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I am currently negotiating a C & R with an MSA on a previously stipped case with Pacific Steel/Hartford.  Hartford got an MSA and wanted me to state that my client would agree to a reversionary clause with outside administration.  I told them he would.   There was no agreement on the overall C & R amount.  The MSA with a structure was submitted.  CMS increased the amount of the MSA.  Hartford said it was still willing to C & R and wanted me to make a demand.  I told them X, but if they eliminated the reversion it would be Y, a 25% reduction in the cost of the structure.  The DA told me that Pacific Steel and Hartford are arguing about the reversion.  The employer does not want it; Hartford is insisting.  They have a meeting scheduled to see who will prevail.  The DA will let me know. Roger Murphy Laguna Beach On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 9:28 AM Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I just got done with a trial (did not go forward) in which DA that The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion back to The Hartford. I told DA I was not aware that a Defendant can refuse to allow a Claimant to self-admin MSA  to avoid the reversion. She also says that with regard to the MSA in my case that is from February 2025, 1.6 years ago, that The Hartford will not submit an MSA to CMS until the parties have already agreed on a C&R. This means that The Hartford will not get CMS approval of an MSA until the parties have already agreed to The Hartford's MSA  amount. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428

I am currently negotiating a C & R with an MSA on a previously stipped case with Pacific Steel/Hartford.  Hartford got an MSA and wanted me to state that my client would agree to a reversionary clause with outside administration. I told them he would. There was no agreement on the overall C & R amount.  The MSA with a structure was submitted.  CMS increased the amount of the MSA.  Hartford said it was still willing to C & R and wanted me to make a demand.  I told them X, but if they eliminated the reversion it would be Y, a 25% reduction in the cost of the structure.  The DA told me that Pacific Steel and Hartford are arguing about the reversion.  The employer does not want it; Hartford is insisting.  They have a meeting scheduled to see who will prevail.  The DA will let me know. Roger Murphy Laguna Beach

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: August 26, 2026 11:28:00 AM Subject: The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I just got done with a trial (did not go forward) in which DA that The Hartford does not allow self-admin MSA so every MSA has a reversion back to The Hartford. I told DA I was not aware that a Defendant can refuse to allow a Claimant to self-admin MSA  to avoid the reversion. She also says that with regard to the MSA in my case that is from February 2025, 1.6 years ago, that The Hartford will not submit an MSA to CMS until the parties have already agreed on a C&R. This means that The Hartford will not get CMS approval of an MSA until the parties have already agreed to The Hartford's MSA  amount. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428

On Aug 20, 2026, at 6:59 PM, Mark Thuesen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:

On Aug 20, 2026, at 11:34 AM, David Dugan (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:

"Karina Delzell" Date: August 14, 2026 6:09:00 PM Subject: Re: Govt Code 21166 Finding of Fact Petition Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Karina Delzell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi Joy, This is specific to CalPERS and eligibility for industrial disability retirement for safety members.  If the employer disputes that the disability is industrial, this petition allows the WCAB to make a finding of industrial causation.  The employee can then move forward with their CalPERS industrial disability retirement application.  The WCAB finding would not confer industrial causation to the underlying comp case. Karina Kowler Delzell Brown & Delzell, LLP Certified Specialist in Workers' Compensation Law 999 Fifth Avenue, Suite 430 San Rafael, CA 94901 415-925-9212 From: Ullasini Joy Dholakia (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 9:37 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] Govt Code 21166 Finding of Fact Petition List: lawnet Sent By: Ullasini Joy Dholakia Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I would love to be educated on this issue. What is the purpose of this Govt Code proceedings ?   Joy Sent from my iPhone On Aug 4, 2026, at 7:06 PM, Karina Delzell (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote:  List: lawnet Sent By: Karina Delzell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi All, I've handled a few Govt Code 21166 Finding of Fact Petitions at different boards (SAC and SRO), and I have always filed them under the same ADJ# as the underlying case without any issue. Now I have a defense attorney arguing that a new ADJ# has to be obtained and this can't proceed under the original ADJ. He is citing to 8 CCR 10460 which states: A request for findings of fact under Government Code sections 21164, 21166, 21537, 21538, 21540 or 21540.5 or under Labor Code sections 4800.5(d), 4801, 4804.2, 4807 or 4851 is a proceeding separate from a claim for workers' compensation benefits even though it arises out of the same incident, injury or exposure. The request for findings of fact shall be filed separately and a separate file folder and record of the proceeding will be maintained, but the request for findings of fact may be consolidated for hearing with a claim for workers' compensation benefits. For those who have handled these petitions before, did you need to obtain a new ADJ#? This is venued in San Francisco. Thanks! Karina Delzell Brown & Delzell

Yes, if I were your judge, but you would need a QME/AME to comment.

"Justin Dixon" Date: August 14, 2026 12:40:00 PM Subject: Re: Credit Issue - Employer-Paid Dual Capacity Settlement vs. §§ 3861/3600(b)/3602 - Any Guidance? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Justin Dixon Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mike, Appreciate the email. On the medical side, the applicant has a confirmed post-concussive syndrome via a neuro QME cause by the fall. That is not disputed. The cause of the fainting episode is in dispute, however. In terms of your thoughts on an injury caused by treatment, I think you're referring to Granado v. WCAB (1968) 69 Cal.2d 399 and Hikida v. WCAB (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249, which allow for disability caused by industrial medical treatment not to be subject to apportionment to preexisting or non-industrial factors. I believe this argument would be won or lost depending upon whether the ER fall constitutes "industrial medical treatment". If the applicant becomes dizzy while working (maybe due to a combination of factors- medication she was taking for a pre-existing condition, dehydration, a busy workday, etc.), and then is transported across the street from on premises to a Regents facility where while in their medical care faints and falls, does this keep you within the course and scope? Even if Defendant proves the syncope itself was substantially caused by her psychiatric medication (a non-industrial factor), I will argue that the TBI wasn't caused by the medication, it was caused by being left unattended and falling during treatment. Is that a proper Hikida argument? Very truly yours, Justin P. Dixon, Esq. DIXON LAW, APC 921 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 434 ' La Habra, CA 90631 Office: 562.685.0003 ' Fax: 562.685.0020 www.dixonlawapc.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged 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. -----Original Message----- From: cognitorsj@aol.com Sent: August 10, 2026 4:53:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Credit Issue - Employer-Paid Dual Capacity Settlement vs. §§ 3861/3600(b)/3602 - Any Guidance? I would nail down the damage the head injury caused. I'd want to get a neuro-psyche if your client is still having headaches, vision issues, personality issues. Basically go to the net and ask for symptoms of brain injury.  If she's still got them and they haven't resolved, then it would be worth it to go forward to see what's going on.   Is she able to work?  The other question is hovering in the back of my brain and hasn't come out. It has something to do with the employer/employee relationship and the fact that any injuries sustained as a result of medical treatment would not be subject to apportionment.  More perhaps, later.  Mike RichterCampbell In a message dated 8/10/2026 11:41:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: ' List: lawnet Sent By: Justin Dixon ' ' Reply To Sender ' Reply To List ' Search ' Settings ' Mates, I'd appreciate any thoughts or case law support on a credit issue that just came up on the eve of an AOE/COE trial I was set for in AHM today with Judge Alice Burden. Factual Background: Applicant, a UCLA/Regents employee, became dizzy and nauseous at work and was transported to a Regents-owned ER across the street for treatment. While there, she was left unattended, fainted, and hit her head. The underlying comp claim (AOE/COE) has been disputed and is set for trial. On the eve of that trial, we learned Applicant separately settled a civil claim against Regents for the ER incident to the tune of a $150,000 general release - which Defendant now says entitles it to a credit against any comp benefits awarded. Given the size of the settlement relative to likely exposure, this credit issue could wash out the comp claim entirely, so it seems like it needs to be resolved by judicial finding before AOE/COE proceeds. There didn't seem to be any point trying AOE/COE if the credit issue is dispositive either way. Judge Burden seemed to agree and took us off calendar. The Issue: Regents is both the employer and the released civil defendant (dual capacity - second injury during ER treatment, separate from the original work injury). That doesn't fit cleanly under Labor Code § 3861, the third-party subrogation chapter (§§3850-3865) which applies to "third party tortfeasors". It also doesn't obviously fit §3600(b), which only credits settlements obtained "pursuant to" the enumerated §3602(b)/§ 4558 exclusivity exceptions - and our claim isn't one of those enumerated exceptions. So on its face, neither statute seems to reach this settlement - but I expect Defendant to lean hard on general equitable "no double recovery" principles to support their entitlement to the credit. Has anyone dealt with a credit dispute in this dual-capacity situation where an employer pays its own civil settlement rather than a true third party? Any case law balancing §§3861, 3600(b), and 3602 in this scenario, or addressing how far the equitable double-recovery argument can stretch past the statutory provisions involving credit? Any guidance, war stories, or legal authority support is appreciated. Thanks in advance. Very truly yours, Justin P. Dixon, Esq. DIXON LAW, APC 921 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 434 ' La Habra, CA 90631 Office: 562.685.0003 ' Fax: 562.685.0020 www.dixonlawapc.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged 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.

cognitorsj@aol.com Date: August 10, 2026 4:53:00 PM Subject: Re: Credit Issue - Employer-Paid Dual Capacity Settlement vs. §§ 3861/3600(b)/3602 - Any Guidance? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I would nail down the damage the head injury caused. I'd want to get a neuro-psyche if your client is still having headaches, vision issues, personality issues. Basically go to the net and ask for symptoms of brain injury.  If she's still got them and they haven't resolved, then it would be worth it to go forward to see what's going on. Is she able to work? The other question is hovering in the back of my brain and hasn't come out. It has something to do with the employer/employee relationship and the fact that any injuries sustained as a result of medical treatment would not be subject to apportionment. More perhaps, later. Mike Richter Campbell In a message dated 8/10/2026 11:41:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Justin Dixon Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mates, I'd appreciate any thoughts or case law support on a credit issue that just came up on the eve of an AOE/COE trial I was set for in AHM today with Judge Alice Burden. Factual Background: Applicant, a UCLA/Regents employee, became dizzy and nauseous at work and was transported to a Regents-owned ER across the street for treatment. While there, she was left unattended, fainted, and hit her head. The underlying comp claim (AOE/COE) has been disputed and is set for trial. On the eve of that trial, we learned Applicant separately settled a civil claim against Regents for the ER incident to the tune of a $150,000 general release - which Defendant now says entitles it to a credit against any comp benefits awarded. Given the size of the settlement relative to likely exposure, this credit issue could wash out the comp claim entirely, so it seems like it needs to be resolved by judicial finding before AOE/COE proceeds. There didn't seem to be any point trying AOE/COE if the credit issue is dispositive either way. Judge Burden seemed to agree and took us off calendar. The Issue: Regents is both the employer and the released civil defendant (dual capacity - second injury during ER treatment, separate from the original work injury). That doesn't fit cleanly under Labor Code § 3861, the third-party subrogation chapter (§§3850-3865) which applies to "third party tortfeasors". It also doesn't obviously fit §3600(b), which only credits settlements obtained "pursuant to" the enumerated §3602(b)/§ 4558 exclusivity exceptions - and our claim isn't one of those enumerated exceptions. So on its face, neither statute seems to reach this settlement - but I expect Defendant to lean hard on general equitable "no double recovery" principles to support their entitlement to the credit. Has anyone dealt with a credit dispute in this dual-capacity situation where an employer pays its own civil settlement rather than a true third party? Any case law balancing §§3861, 3600(b), and 3602 in this scenario, or addressing how far the equitable double-recovery argument can stretch past the statutory provisions involving credit? Any guidance, war stories, or legal authority support is appreciated. Thanks in advance. Very truly yours, Justin P. Dixon, Esq. DIXON LAW, APC 921 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 434 ' La Habra, CA 90631 Office: 562.685.0003 ' Fax: 562.685.0020 www.dixonlawapc.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged 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.

In 2022, the WCAB addressed a similar issue in Espinoza v. Henkels and McCoy . I attached the decision for your review, Mike. As to calling the investigator under Evidence Code section 776, the potential issue is whether the investigator qualifies as a person "identified with" defendant under section 776(d). If the investigator is an employee or agent of the employer or carrier, the argument is stronger. If the investigator works for an outside investigation company, application of section 776 is less certain. For that reason, I would frame the request more broadly. I would ask the WCJ to take the surveillance evidence first, including examination of the investigator under Evidence Code section 776 and Labor Code section 5708, because defendant intends to rely upon the surveillance, the physicians have already reviewed it without changing their opinions, and addressing it first would streamline the trial. Espinoza is useful because the applicant there called the defense representative pursuant to section 776 in connection with video evidence. A 2025 panel decision, Wanyonyi , also discusses the treatment and significance of sub rosa evidence. I would emphasize judicial economy rather than applicant convenience. If defendant believes the surveillance is important enough to consume four hours of trial, the DA should identify the portions that allegedly matter, present those portions through the investigator, and explain what they supposedly establish. There is little reason to spend hours viewing cumulative footage that the medical evaluators have already reviewed and found insufficient to alter their opinions. The basic argument would be: deal with the surveillance first, put the investigator under oath, identify the allegedly significant portions, show those portions, and then allow the applicant to testify concerning what the Court has actually seen. That also takes much of the "gotcha" value out of the surveillance and places the burden where it belongs—on defendant to establish its actual significance. If the films truly show very little, addressing them early may ultimately work to the applicant's advantage. Best of luck. Darin Powell -- Mitchell & Powell A Professional Law Corp. (Phone) 559.733.9898 / 559.733.5655 (Fax) www.mitchellandpowell.com

From, Larry D. Rosenstein Law Offices of Larry D. Rosenstein 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste 905 WT Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel. (310) 478-5445 Fax (310) 378-7175 e-mail: ldrlaw@earthlink.net This message is intended only for the use of the individual to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged/condidential/and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Law Office of Larry D. Rosenstein

"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: July 30, 2026 1:10:00 PM Subject: Re: Pre-emptive 5710 Depo Letter from Defense Atty laying out their Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings And keep in mind the DA has used their chance for a depo. -----Original Message----- From: lhj@jacobsmalaw.net Sent: July 28, 2026 12:58:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Pre-emptive 5710 Depo Letter from Defense Atty laying out their "terms" I have had the pleasure (?) of having many cases against Negar. I have never agreed to sign the agreement. She used to fight me on it. Now she simply "refuses to move forward with the deposition then", as if I'm suffering from the financial loss and will change my mind. I, on the other hand, take it as win. Laila Havre Jacobsma Attorney at Law [cid:42b10634-cb91-486c-a180-6e54878e71fc] [cid:10ff38ab-2fbb-4520-b2ea-963aa853e2e7] SOUTHEAST LAW CENTER 12749 Norwalk Boulevard, Suite 104 Norwalk, CA 90650 Ph. (562) 219-2747 Fax (562) 868-5529 LHJ@JacobsmaLaw.net ************************************************************ IMPORTANT NOTICE: (A) The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you should delete this e-mail and destroy any printouts or copies. Further, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. (B) E-mail is not a method authorized by law to (i) give legal notice, (ii) give notice of legal proceedings, or (iii) serve pleadings. (C) The e-mail address of the sender of this message is not authorized to (a) receive any notice (including notice of ex parte proceedings) or (b) accept service of pleadings or any other legal document. ________________________________ From: Darin Powell (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:08 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re:[lawnet] Pre-emptive 5710 Depo Letter from Defense Atty laying out their "terms" List: lawnet Sent By: Darin Powell<mailto:darin@mitchellandpowell.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:darin@mitchellandpowell.com?subject=Re%3A%20Pre-emptive%205710%20Depo%20Letter%20from%20Defense%20Atty%20laying%20out%20their%20%22terms%22> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Pre-emptive%205710%20Depo%20Letter%20from%20Defense%20Atty%20laying%20out%20their%20%22terms%22> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> I reviewed the letter, and this goes quite a bit further than simply proposing a $400 hourly rate. It tries to set the rules in advance for preparation time, transcript review, travel, document production, settlement discussions, invoicing, and payment. The language I find most objectionable is the claim that confirming and attending the deposition will be treated as agreement to all of those terms. I do not believe defense counsel can create an agreement simply by declaring that attendance constitutes acceptance. Defense counsel cannot turn a deposition notice into a contract by fiat. That would be like a restaurant putting a sign on the door stating that anyone who enters has agreed to buy dinner for the entire room. Simply showing up does not establish mutual assent. I would respond in writing that I do not agree to the proposed terms and that neither confirmation nor attendance will be considered consent or waiver. I would also reject the blanket one-hour limit on preparation and the refusal to pay for transcript review. Whether that time is reasonable should depend on the facts of the particular case and deposition, not a unilateral rule imposed beforehand. The letter also attempts to require document production without a separate notice to produce and asks counsel to appear with settlement authority. Those are separate issues and should not become conditions of the applicant appearing for deposition. I would attend the deposition under a clear written reservation of rights, state the objection on the record, submit my invoice, and address any unreasonable reduction via petition to the WCAB. I would be reluctant to cancel the deposition solely over the fee dispute, since that may create a separate appearance issue. I noticed the name of the attorney, Negar Matian, and remember having read several comments about her and her manner of practice that were less than flattering. I am curious whether others are receiving the same form letter from this firm, or similar letters from other defense firms, and how they are handling the "attendance equals acceptance" language. Darin Powell -- [https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4z-OTaI-Vj3hRAIWipdjgRIy_Gdhp7MZjLCEG4xpiUyM3yro9afgks7POkp5JosAPKOsPvex3d8mFcp] Mitchell & Powell A Professional Law Corp. (Phone) 559.733.9898 / 559.733.5655 (Fax) www.mitchellandpowell.com<http://www.mitchellandpowell.com>

From: Darin Powell (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:08 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re:[lawnet] Pre-emptive 5710 Depo Letter from Defense Atty laying out their "terms"

Hi Christopher - I generally agree with your approach of responding with your own terms, but I would not cancel the deposition simply because defense refuses to agree t my terms. In my view, that plays into the premise that defense counsel can unilaterally dictate the rules of engagement. They cannot.The WCJ not defense counsel—ultimately determines what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee under Labor Code section 5710. The amount of preparation time, the hourly rate, compensation for document production, transcript review, travel, and other related services are matters for the parties to stipulate or, failing agreement, for the WCJ to decide. I don't think defense counsel can create a binding contract simply by declaring that attendance at a deposition constitutes acceptance of their terms. That strikes me as more aspirational than enforceable. The letter attempts to do exactly that by stating that confirming and attending the deposition will be deemed acquiescence to its listed terms, including a $400 hourly rate, one hour of preparation, and limitations on reimbursable services. I would, however, respond to the document production portion. If the defense wants the applicant to gather years of records, medication lists, identification, or other documents beyond what is legally required, that takes attorney time, and I would make it clear that I expect to be compensated for that work if it is outside the ordinary preparation for the deposition. One provision I actually like is the request that counsel appear with settlement authority. Frankly, I wish every deposition were handled that way. I always welcome hearing a defense offer because it tells me how they value the case and, perhaps more importantly, why they value it that way. You often learn far more from the explanation accompanying an offer than from the offer itself.  Of course this should be billed for as part of your deposition time. I jokingly refer to this as the "spy" or "espionage" phase of the litigation. Litigation is not war in the literal sense, but there are undeniable strategic elements. Each side is gathering information, testing theories, assessing strengths and weaknesses, and trying to understand the other side's position. A deposition presents an opportunity to listen carefully, negotiate, probe their thinking, and sometimes gain valuable insight into how they intend to defend the case. Those discussions can be extremely informative if you keep your ears open and your emotions in check. So, I would not cancel the deposition over a disagreement about 5710 fees. I would reserve my objections, make my position clear in writing, attend the deposition, submit my invoice afterward, and if we cannot reach agreement, let the WCJ decide what is reasonable. In my opinion, that keeps the focus where it belongs—on moving the case forward rather than litigating a defense lawyer's self-imposed "terms and conditions." Hope this helps,   Art Arthur Csillag, Esq. acsillaglaw@gmail.com Law Office Of Arthur Csillag 2410 W. Magnolia Blvd. Burbank, CA  91506 O  (818) 558-7225 / Cell (818) 219-4264 / Fx (818) 558-7151

Good morning, We are in receipt of medical records for the above applicant's appointment on Tuesday but we did not receive a cover letter. Will you be sending one before the appointment? -- Kind Regards, Jessica Roger Billing Specialist / Lien Negotiator Ph# 949-333-1586 Fax# 888-838-3749

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: July 23, 2026 1:21:00 PM Subject: Re: Urgent! At Expedited Hearing Now Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings A Priority Conference does not apply with injury is accepted but body parts are at issue. Traditionally, the next stop to proving body parts is to proceed to QME Panel Request and PQME, but you already did that. As for Def denying a permanent SCS after a successful SCS Trial, but how is Def to do that? Refuse to send RFA to UR in violation of LC 4610? Refuse to approve a UR approval? Refuse to pay for SCS implant? I don't think any of those options is likely. You also have plenty of time for file for Penalties and Sanctions. 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, July 23, 2026 11:08:34 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Urgent! At Expedited Hearing Now List: lawnet Sent By: Karen Steinitz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you my friends to all who responded.  The Judge indicated he will rule in my favor today for the treatment issue because they did not put the RFA through UR. Instead, DA sent a letter that they would not submit it to UR because the treatment was for a disputed body part and separately issued a denial for only that body part.   Until several weeks ago, I did not know they were denying (the neck). (original injury is hand).  The defendant approved a spinal cord stimulator trial but decided to deny the permanent implant. However, is my next step to file for a priority conference?   If I can argue the denial was untimely, I'd like to move forward before the depo the QME. Any advice is appreciated and I thank you for your quick responses! Karen Shrita Steinitz Galine Frye Fitting & Frangos ____________________________ Hello Friends, I have a question about timeliness claim denial for additional body parts? This is an admitted specific injury to the right hand from 2024. Before we represented applicant, she went to a QME in July of 2025 who found additional body parts to the neck, shoulder, right upper extremity etc. Applicant began treatment we came on the case in January of 2026 and filed an opening application alleging all of the body parts. No denial was issued until 6 months later. Denial states that insurance company is only accepting the right hand and everything else is denied. Defendant is now challenging the nature and extent of the injury even though we have a QME from one year ago. Is the entire case assumed compensable & and is the denial untimely? Thank you friends, Karen Steinitz Galine Frye Fitting & Frangos

cognitorsj@aol.com Date: September 04, 2026 5:08:00 PM Subject: Re: the PPD rate is living in the past Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Guy - I think that you are looking only at offensive actions instead of defensive actions. I think the lobby has been very successful in preventing bad legislation. When a less wealthy group takes on hugely powerful entities who have the ability to sink or float candidacies, doing excellent defense is absolutely doing a good, if not great job. I have to ask, how much do you actually know about what our lobby has prevented? Are you part of CAAA's lobby wing? Do you go to the CAAA lobby days? I'm not attacking you. I'm just inquiring how much you actually know about what the lobbying group has been doing to defend against further disastrous legislation.  If you have a great deal of knowledge, then have at with your criticism. If you are simply criticizing the folks that are part of that group and, as far as the attorneys go, freely donating their time for the greater good of injured workers and CAAA, I would ask that you tell us what experience you have had with the group, how much time you have devoted to lobbying for workers and CAAA in the past 14 years, and give us some background that supports your contention that "Our lobby hasn't produced anything significant" in the past 14 years. Look forward to hearing how you came to this conclusion. Perhaps your insights and suggestions and then your time invested can turn that around. Just checking. Mike Richter Campbell In a message dated 9/4/2026 1:31:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Guy Medford Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Agreed! Our lobby hasn't produced anything significant since I joined CAAA 14 years ago. Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 10:33 AM, Pauli S. Larsen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Pauli S. Larsen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings The statement that our side waived the long-awaited PD rate increase out of FEAR the other side would then gut the CT law is disgusting IMO. We should fight for what is right (the PD rate increase) and fight everything else that is right (keeping CT injuries compensable as historically they have been), and not give up and walk away with our tail between our legs on PD out of fear and threats that they would then hurt IW's more by new CT legislation- what is that? Unbelievable. And what kind of guarantee do we have that b/c we GAVE UP on the much needed PD increase that they won't still attempt to gut compensability of CT injuries? What is wrong with our lobbyist? Feels like back-stabbing. -----Original Message----- From: abs@snitzerlaw.com Sent: August 29, 2026 7:54:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: the PPD rate is living in the past Didn't you hear? The Legislature was set to pass a bill at the end of June to effectuate about a 61% PD increase, first since 2014, (around the same time as the SIF debacle took place), but the Chamber of Commerce, and the other criminals on the Dark Side held us and our allies hostage by threatening to push THEIR bill that would have gutted CT claims (which has been on their "wish list" forever), so not wanting to risk the important CT claims, our side quietly withdrew the PD increase, which as you correctly point out, is long overdue; death benefits are even MORE out of date. The last increase was 2006, TWENTY years ago! So, the "fun", and horse trading, start all over again in January! LAW OFFICES OF ALAN B. SNITZER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION​ 80 S. Lake Ave., Suite 800 Pasadena, California 91101-2585 T: 626-449-4300<tel:+16264494300> F: 626-449-0830<tel:+16264490830> Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law Board of Legal Specialization, The State Bar of California [image] Included in SUPER LAWYERS Southern California Edition 2015-2026 [image] 1998-2026 ________________________________ From: Andrew Shaffer (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2026 17:07:09 To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] the PPD rate is living in the past List: lawnet Sent By: Andrew Shaffer<mailto:aksesq@gmail.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:aksesq@gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20the%20PPD%20rate%20is%20living%20in%20the%20past> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20the%20PPD%20rate%20is%20living%20in%20the%20past> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> Our office has one employee, and we have a WC policy for her. In 2013 the premium was $440 per year. In 2026 it was $567 per year. On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 5:32 PM Jamie Blunt (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org<mailto:listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org>> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Jamie Blunt<mailto:jamieblunt@hotmail.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:jamieblunt@hotmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20the%20PPD%20rate%20is%20living%20in%20the%20past> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20the%20PPD%20rate%20is%20living%20in%20the%20past> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> Dear Choir, The maximum partial permanent disability rate has been $290 per week since 2013! After all of the cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) since 2013, $290.00 in 2013 equates to $479.59 in 2026! That's a 65.38% increase from inflation and yet our PPD rate remains unchanged!! In 2013, the minimum wage was $8. In 2026, the minimum wage is $16.90! That's a 111.25% increase and still our PPD rate remains unchanged! Presently, in 2026, two-thirds of the wages of a full-time (40 hours) worker making minimum wage is $450.67! The current PPD maximum rate of $290.00 is the equivalent to gross, weekly earnings of $435.00. Someone working for minimum wage for only 26 hours per week makes more than an injured worker surviving on PD advances. It has been 13 years that the maximum PPD rate has seen no increase! My review of old labor code books suggests that the longest period of no change in the PPD rate prior to 2013 was the 7 years from 2005 to 2012. We are now approaching double the amount of time of the second longest period of no increase in the maximum PPD rate. And the maximum, gross average weekly wage for a life pension has remained $515.38 for over 20 years now!!!! If I were to apply all of the COLA adjustments, $515.38 in 2006 equates to $1,082.36 in 2026! Why has there been no increase!?! 2022 alone saw record inflation of 13.5%! PD rates should be up to at least $480.00. How can this change happen? When does this decision get considered? Is there some RAND study that has been ignored or never been completed? Can my PAC contribution effectuate an increase in the injured workers' maximum PD rate? Jamie A. Blunt, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMIE A. BLUNT 1651 E 4th St, Ste 151<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1651+E+4th+St,+Ste+151+%0D%0ASanta+Ana,+CA+92701?entry=gmail&source=g> Santa Ana, CA 92701<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1651+E+4th+St,+Ste+151+%0D%0ASanta+Ana,+CA+92701?entry=gmail&source=g> (657) 232-3222<tel:(657)%20232-3222> Telephone (714) 333-1832<tel:(714)%20333-1832> Fax NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. The information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message. -- Andrew K. Shaffer BORAH & SHAFFER 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd., #230 Cupertino, CA 95014 408-996-8650

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: August 28, 2026 11:56:00 AM Subject: Re: defendant is seeking a protectie order Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Karen, I have skipped over your post because I couldn't figure out what the DA filed a Protective Order from . I got the scenario that there is a non-party, non-witness eavesdropper who believes he/she/they have some special knowledge that they want everybody to know they know.  " One of those statements happened right before I was scheduled to depose a manager and defendant has now filed for a protective order." I collect case law and statutes on Protective Orders. Is DA seeking to prohibit depo of witness entirely or limit the scope of your questions or appoint a deposition referee to rule on objections to your questions at the deposition or what? Before, after or even during a deposition, “for good cause shown,” the court may grant a protective order to control the deposition proceedings or the information obtained thereby. [See CCP § 2025.420] ➪ [8:675.1] PRACTICE POINTER: It isn't always necessary to seek a protective order to control improper deposition questions or tactics. It is usually more practical simply to object than it is to adjourn the depo and seek a protective order. (See “Strategies and Tactics re Protective Orders,” discussed at ¶ 8:1022.) But a protective order is the only effective remedy where you are seeking to suppress or limit deposition testimony by an independent witness (e.g., on grounds his or her information is privileged). Merely objecting at the deposition won't prevent the independent witness from disregarding your objection and answering the questions. a. [8:676 ] Grounds for relief: The court is empowered to issue whatever order “justice requires” to protect a party or deponent against “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” [CCP § 2025.420(b); see Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (2014) 223 CA4th 261, 316, 167 CR3d 173, 218—§ 2025.420(b) provides “nonexclusive list of permissible directions that may be included in a protective order” (emphasis in original)] Generally, this requires a showing that the burdens involved in the deposition proceeding clearly outweigh whatever benefits are sought to be obtained thereby. [See CCP § 2017.020(a), ¶ 8:74] It is also ground for relief that the information sought is unnecessarily cumulative; or that it is obtainable elsewhere at less cost and inconvenience. [See CCP § 2019.030(a), ¶ 8:43] b. [8:677] Relief available: “For good cause shown,” the court is empowered to make whatever orders are required, including the following: • Prohibiting the deposition entirely; • Changing the time or place from that stated in the deposition notice; • Postponing a video deposition of an expert witness that is to be used at trial in lieu of live testimony (under CCP § 2025.620(d), see ¶ 8:892) to allow opposing parties time to prepare for cross-examining the expert (including taking his or her deposition, if necessary); • Limiting scope of questioning permitted at the deposition; • Limiting form of discovery, by requiring written instead of oral questions, or interrogatories to a party instead of a deposition; • Denying production or inspection of materials demanded in the deposition notice; • Setting conditions for the production of electronically-stored information; • Protecting confidential information (trade secrets, etc.) by limiting the persons to whom disclosure is to be made, and how much information must be disclosed; • Excluding nonparties from the deposition; • Limiting public access to the deposition transcript (by requiring it to be sealed and thereafter opened only on court order); • Imposing terms and conditions on which the deposition may proceed (CCP § 2025.420(b)); • Appointing a referee to preside over the deposition and rule on any objections (CCP § 639(a)(5), see ¶ 8:742 ff.); • Changing the otherwise applicable time limit on deposition examination of a witness (CCP § 2025.290(c), see ¶ 8:702.10). 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: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 8:25:58 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] defendant is seeking a protectie order List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I would tell your client's friend, in a friendly manner, to SHUT UP! He's not helping your client. He's not moving the case forward. He's putting himself in the center of a target for a civil slander action. He isn't a litigant, so the WCJ cannot enjoin him from talking because it doesn't have jurisdiction over him. But if the Defense wants to sue him, or first give him a cease and desist order, that might work. Another thing D could do is ask the WCJ to seal all the proceedings in the case.  That wouldn't do you or your client much good either. I refer you back to line #1. Mike Richter Campbell In a message dated 8/26/2026 7:28:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Karen Steinitz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello friends, Has anyone here had a defendant seek a protective order about statements being made publicly? I have a psyche case with some related litigation going on outside WC, and there is a very vocal friend/advocate of my client who I'd call a bit of a loud mouth. This person has made public statements about the employer & board members discussing my client's case stating they have costly battles ahead & should lose their jobs. One of those statements happened right before I was scheduled to depose a manager and defendant has now filed for a protective order. I can't imagine how such an order would even be enforced but I'd like to do an objection. Any input is greatly appreciated. Karen Shrira Steinitz San Mateo Galine Frye Fitting & Frangos

"Brian A. Grafstrom" Date: August 21, 2026 12:56:00 PM Subject: Re: WCJ Carla Topdjian- 911? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Grafstrom Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I would not challenge.  Judge Topdjian is fair and pleasant. From: Diana Berlin (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 7:21 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] WCJ Carla Topdjian- 911? List: lawnet Sent By: Diana Berlin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I had an expedited hearing in front of her. It didn’t go forward but she does listen and tries to help. I hope it helps. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 20, 2026, at 6:59 PM, Mark Thuesen (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote:  List: lawnet Sent By: Mark Thuesen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a colleague who has trial with WCJ Tapdjian. Tomorrow is his last day to challenge. Has anyone appeared before her who can offer observations about whether it makes sense to try and replace her? Thank you in advance. You can email me at the above email or my work email Mark@pacificworkers.com . Thank you in advance. Mark

Miranda thanks for the information and for your efforts.  Very good information for the community.

I brought this issue up with PJ Hawthorne. Here are excerpts of our email exchange: Our members have expressed ongoing concerns regarding delays caused by EDD's lack of responsiveness. We have several cases in which settlements have been delayed for months because we are unable to obtain timely responses from EDD. Has there been any discussion about having an EDD representative available for in-person trials to assist with lien issues and facilitate resolution? No discussions about them being available.  However, you can always file a DOR if they are not moving the matter forward. Our guidance has been to treat them like any other lien claimant.  You have seen me drag them into a hearing on my MSC calendar and I believe the other judges will as well.  That’s about all we can do.  Getting in front of a judge is the best way.  The second best would be to ensure defendant takes complete responsibility for the lien and hold applicant harmless 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.

Heather Is defendant going to try to prove "distracted driving" as the cause to prove self-inflicted?

We are set for trial on the issue of whether my client has to turn over his cell phone to an investigator for their review and to “preserve evidence”. This is a denied case. Defense is asserting intoxication defense – THC allegedly in client’s system. There are issues with whether the “blood samples” lab, etc were proper and we will likely make motion to exclude when case in chief goes forward (lab is refusing to provide documents in response to subpoena, carrier has refused to provide full claim file including notes, etc). We know it is defendants’ burden to prove that the alleged intoxication was the proximate and substantial cause of the accident. Client was towing a vehicle, lost control and crashed in mountainous terrain. Took approx. 45 min from crash to first responders. Amputated leg, TBI, multiple body parts injured.  Intoxication is not indicated in any of the first responder records or in any of the medical records. Date of accident 10-5-25 Insurance (Zenith) files app for discovery 10-13-25 Insurance delays claim on 10-14-25 Insurance denies claim on 12-19-25 Def files motion for cell phone July 2026 Def has made no attempt to get records/evidence in other ways such as subpoenaing the cell provider, etc. Def has not given any indication as to what they want from my client’s cell phone. They indicated to the Judge that they want the phone records from three days prior to the accident until the present time. Def has not taken our client's deposition. We objected on several grounds: 4 th and 5 th amendment, attorney client privilege, spousal privilege, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, etc. We also objected on the basis that the defendants did not motion the court during their 90-day investigation period. Any other objections or arguments that we should assert? Any words of wisdom? We discussed with the judge that in order for law enforcement to get an order to produce a cell phone there has to be probable cause and a warrant issued. Def response was in civil they are not held to that standard and don’t have to specify what they are looking for. It has been a really really long time since we have done a civil case and we know it is generally much easier to go fishing for information that has a likelihood to lead to admissible or relevant evidence. However, civil discovery is generally frowned upon in wc. We do not believe that there is anything on our client’s phone, but we are fighting this on principle. As we all know, cell phones can contain our entire lives through apps such as banking, emails, passwords, passports, ssn’s, etc. Thanks in advance!

"Zachary Kweller" Date: August 01, 2026 10:56:00 AM Subject: MediCal Asset Limits Changing - Gavin Strikes Again Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Zachary Kweller Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi All, As part of the recently approved budget, asset limits for MediCal eligibility are changing drastically 7/1/27, dropping from $130k to $21k for an individual. The spousal limit is being reduced from $65k to $10k. It will be important to explore putting settlement funds in a special needs trust and/or other asset protection methods moving forward, especially on large settlements if your clients rely on MediCal and don't want to lose eligibility. https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/medi-cal/help/asset-limit-frequently-asked-questions/ Thanks,

"Mary-Lyn Hyman" Date: July 28, 2026 11:21:00 AM Subject: Announcing the 2026 GIE Hall of Fame!_on October 15th @ 5:00 PM_Registration is NOW OPEN! Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: hof 2026 flyer.pdf (2684 K) Hello Chapter’s: We are delighted to invite you to the 6 th Biennial Greater Inland Empire Hall of Fame, taking place on October 15 at 5:00 PM at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Pomona. This special evening celebrates the remarkable individuals whose dedication, leadership and service have made a lasting impact on California’s Workers’ compensation community and the lives of injured workers throughout our state. Honoring the 2026 Hall of Fame Inductees: David Doty, M.D. Honorable Jeff Wilson Honorable Robin Woolsey Christel Schoenfelder, Esq. (In Memoriam) Registration is now open – CLICK HERE . (Early Bird Rate ends September 17) We hope you will join us for this memorable evening as we recognize and celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of our 2026 inductees.  We encourage you to reserve your seat or table early and be part of this inspiring celebration. If you have any questions or need assistance with registration or purchasing a table, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 805-708-1953. We look forward to celebrating with you on October 15. Regards, Mary-Lyn Hyman Chapter, Marketing and Exhibitor Liaison 1303 J Street, Suite 420  l  Sacramento, CA 95814 Mary-Lyn@caaa.org l www.caaa.org C: 805-708-1953 l F: 916-444-0661 “Together we can change the world, just one random act of kindness at a time†. Ron Hall CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication may include confidential information and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, store or copy the email or any related attachments.

"Mary-Lyn Hyman" Date: July 28, 2026 11:21:00 AM Subject: Announcing the 2026 GIE Hall of Fame!_on October 15th @ 5:00 PM_Registration is NOW OPEN! Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: hof 2026 flyer.pdf (2684 K) Hello Chapter’s: We are delighted to invite you to the 6 th Biennial Greater Inland Empire Hall of Fame, taking place on October 15 at 5:00 PM at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Pomona. This special evening celebrates the remarkable individuals whose dedication, leadership and service have made a lasting impact on California’s Workers’ compensation community and the lives of injured workers throughout our state. Honoring the 2026 Hall of Fame Inductees: David Doty, M.D. Honorable Jeff Wilson Honorable Robin Woolsey Christel Schoenfelder, Esq. (In Memoriam) Registration is now open – CLICK HERE . (Early Bird Rate ends September 17) We hope you will join us for this memorable evening as we recognize and celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of our 2026 inductees.  We encourage you to reserve your seat or table early and be part of this inspiring celebration. If you have any questions or need assistance with registration or purchasing a table, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 805-708-1953. We look forward to celebrating with you on October 15. Regards, Mary-Lyn Hyman Chapter, Marketing and Exhibitor Liaison 1303 J Street, Suite 420  l  Sacramento, CA 95814 Mary-Lyn@caaa.org l www.caaa.org C: 805-708-1953 l F: 916-444-0661 “Together we can change the world, just one random act of kindness at a time†. Ron Hall CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication may include confidential information and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, store or copy the email or any related attachments.