injury

"Justin Dixon" Date: August 10, 2026 1:41:00 PM Subject: 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 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.

"Matthew Keller" Date: August 10, 2026 12:28:00 PM Subject: DA offers AME Steven Isono, Beth Bathgate and Mikiko Murakami Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Matthew Keller Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Accepted specific injury (using torque bar to tighten strap on load, bar slipped) ortho claim neck / back / shoulders I have used and use Dr. Isono and Dr. Bathgate as AME. I would like to try someone new and all recent feedback on Mikiko Murakami is positive Is Mikiko Murakami OK to use as AME or not as good as Isono or Bathgate? Thank you in advance!

"Bonnie Wilson" Date: August 06, 2026 4:56:00 PM Subject: Dr Konovalenko Reply to list Reply to sender Print My client suffered a stroke at work.  As he fell he struck his head/neck on part of the machinery in the field and landed on his shoulder.  The DA took his deposition with him stating he struck his head on the ‘mesa’ part of the machinery and fell to the ground.  He really doesn’t know what happened because he had passed out at the time.  He only knows what the people around him said. Dr. Konovalenko initially said there was an industrial injury to the neck and shoulder.  In the initial report he indicated my client experienced a seizure after falling with the co-workers’ watching him perform grand mal seizure body movements after losing consciousness.  Thus it is medically probable he experienced a seizure.  Striking the hard surface and experiencing seizure-like movements would cause the injuries outlined. But when he reviewed the applicant’s deposition and the medical reports, he said there was no orthopedic injury as there is no correlation between claimed body parts and the documented mechanism of collapse during seizure.   There is no report of orthopedic injuries while in the ambulance and the ER. It is not medically probable the consequences of the fall caused the musculoskeletal injuries. I sent him Employers Mutual v. IAC (Gideon) , 41 CA2d 676, 18 CCC 286 (1953), Harris Ranch v. WCAB (Orrala) , 77 CCC 94 (W/D-2011).  He did not change his mind. Be careful what kind of cases you send to him.  We are going to trial on whether his reports are substantial medical evidence. Bonnie Binder Wilson, Esq. Wilson & Wisler, LLP Attorneys at Law 21 Maple Street Salinas, California  93901 Telephone: (831) 269-3787 Facsimile: (831) 269-3783 www.doubleulaw.com *************** PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL **************** THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION IS A COMMUNICATION FROM THE LAW FIRM OF WILSON & WISLER, LLP.  THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND IS CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR WILSON & WISLER, LLP.  THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY THAT IS THE INTENDED RECIPIENT.

Hi All, I have an admitted ortho injury. PTP says based upon studies that applicant's pain contributed to her ischemic attack while also contributing to afib. He has recommended an internist and neuro. This is a City of LA case.  We are required to get to an AME on their list as it is an ADR case. The internal AMEs are: 1.  Dr. Stuart Kramer, 2. Dr. Paul Grodan, and 3. Dr. Harvey Alpern The neuro AMEs are: 1. Clarke D. Dspy, MD  2.  Ezekiel Fink, MD  3. Robert ShorrKhaled Anees, MD I think Alpern is not great.  I like Fink. Any input on these physicians would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.   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

"Daniel Saban" Date: August 06, 2026 12:33:00 PM Subject: PQME Dr Sepehr Rejai Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Daniel Saban Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings For lawnet archive purposes, Dr Rejai wrote a wipe out PQME report on an accepted specific knee injury case.  He wrote that report with NO medical reports since c/a failed to send initially. Dr Rejai will be an automatic strike from me in the future. Daniel Saban The Carlo Law Group San Jose

"Karina Delzell" Date: August 04, 2026 8:07:00 PM Subject: 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 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

"Alan Fenton" Date: August 04, 2026 5:58:00 PM Subject: Re: DA sent out cover letter disregard of my objection. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Alan Fenton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Maybe trying to get out of going to that AME, put objections in writing and file for a hearing with a PP. af Alan H. Fenton, Esq. Law Offices of Alan H. Fenton, a PC 1334 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (t) 805-568-1800 (f) 805-966-7006 This message contains confidential/privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, communication, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Please inform us by replying. Thank You. From: Diep Nguyen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 3:53 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] DA sent out cover letter disregard of my objection. List: lawnet Sent By: Diep Nguyen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a bizarre situation.  I have the case where defendant accepted the entire claim for all body parts  applicant claims.  TTD paid and we agreed to go to the AME In the DA cover letter to AME, she asked all the questions related to AOE/COE questions such as (1)  applicant sustain any injury (2)  Connection between applicant   injury and applicant's work (3) were actual events  of  employment the predominant cause of the claim injury (4)  Did the injury arise out of applicant's employment or occur during the course of applicant's employment.  DA said these questions are needed to have the AME substantial evidence. I objected these line of four questions. DA advised me that she is going to send the cover letter out regardless of my objection and she asked me to file the DOR .  This is a strange situation that  never seen before. Any advise please. Diep Nguyen, Attorney At Law 1569 Lexann Avenue, Suite 110 San Jose, CA 95121 P: (408) 528 - 0151 F: (408) 528 - 0153

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: August 04, 2026 2:31:00 PM Subject: SAC Pain Management QME Panel - who to pick Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Unrepresented Raley's employee who also works for Amazon has knee injury. Denied claim. SAC Pain Management QME Panel - Who to pick from this QME Panel ? Syed Mohammad Mahmood Brian Bernhardt David Smolins Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428

"Erin Scharg" Date: August 03, 2026 2:07:00 PM Subject: Neuroimmunology Eval Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Erin Scharg Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a case where my client has a head injury and has chronic severe migraines. There is medical evidence suggesting possible MS. QME Laura Edinger has recommended neuroimmunology evaluation. Client already had a consult with a neurologist outside of MPN prior to my representation which QME has seen. Anyone know of a QME that can evaluate this? Erin Scharg Eason & Tambornini

"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: August 02, 2026 9:11:00 PM Subject: QME finds compensable injury. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings The following assumes the def has done nothing upon receipt of the report. However, it also applies if they have XX'd the QME and it still holds up. I would go to the expedited hearing route. I would subpoena the adj to attend. My only question would be "What is your reasonable medical or legal doubt as to the compensability of this injury? The following assumes the def has done nothing after receipt of the report casting doubt as to a compensable injury? See LC 4063.They have 10 days to start payments (or, assumedly, declare why they will not pay.) Strong possibility of sanctions/penalty petition. If the judge does nothing, do petition to remove or recon.

"Kimberley J. Pryor" Date: July 31, 2026 4:59:00 PM Subject: Re: PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I find priority conferences to be a waste of time. They take just as long get on calendar as an MSC and they give the Def an opportunity to delay for several more months to "set an MSC". I file a DOR for MSC on AOE/COE Issues and add penalties etc for bad faith denial maintenance. KJ Pryor, Esq. Patience my arse. I am doing something! -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: July 30, 2026 2:41:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? Arthur, A Claims Administrator can deny a claim for any reason or no reason. Once it's denied you get a PQME. You have a PQME. Penalties and sanctions are per these statutes, LC 4061(h)(1), 4063 and 4650(a) and (d) and use the en banc Farris case to calculate how much you are asking for. When you file your Petitions for Penalties and/or Sanctions, of course you do not accuse the Def Atty of ignorance of the law. You accuse the Claims Administrator of ignorance of the law and slap them around with Reg 10421. You are not going to get medical treatment for a denied case at an Expedited Hearing. I don't know where in California you are getting the notion that a WCJ will overturn a denial, find injury and order medical care at an Expedited Hearing. You need a Priority Conference. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://the-compensation-law-center.business.site/ ' The Compensation Law Center ] Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 12:23:33 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:kbryant@klbryantlaw.com ' Kevin Bryant ] [ mailto:kbryant@klbryantlaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20PENALTIES%20AND%20SANCTIONS%20FOR%20DENIAL%20OF%20A%20CLAIM%20FOR%20WHICH%20THE%20QME%20FOUND%20CAUSATION%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20PENALTIES%20AND%20SANCTIONS%20FOR%20DENIAL%20OF%20A%20CLAIM%20FOR%20WHICH%20THE%20QME%20FOUND%20CAUSATION%3F ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] If both claims are denied in full, don't you need to file for a Priority Conference to get AOE/COE adjudicated first? 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: Arthur Csillag (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 12:21 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:acsillaglaw@gmail.com ' Arthur Csillag ] [ mailto:acsillaglaw@gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20PENALTIES%20AND%20SANCTIONS%20FOR%20DENIAL%20OF%20A%20CLAIM%20FOR%20WHICH%20THE%20QME%20FOUND%20CAUSATION%3F ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20PENALTIES%20AND%20SANCTIONS%20FOR%20DENIAL%20OF%20A%20CLAIM%20FOR%20WHICH%20THE%20QME%20FOUND%20CAUSATION%3F ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Hi Everyone, I have a case where UCLA and Sedgwick are denying a CT and specific ortho injury despite the physical medicine QME finding causation for both. The treating ortho has requested a PRP injection for the shoulder which the adjuster has denied based upon a denial of the claim. I intend on filing for an EH for medical treatment. Should I be requesting sanctions and/or penalties for this denial as I cannot see any reason why the claim is denied? Thank you in advance for any input, cases, regs, etc. that support penalties and/or sanctions. The DA is a nice guy and good to work with. Off the record he cannot explain the denial as well. I do not wish to seek sanctions or penalties against him but against the adjuster and/or Sedgwick. Art Arthur Csillag, Esq. [ mailto:ascsillaglaw@gmail.com ' 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 T he Law Office Of Arthur Csillag strives to be conscientious about using as little paper as possible. While we cannot accept official service via fax or email, we welcome receiving all other communications via email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email is confidential, privileged and/or may also contain attorney-client information or attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, use, dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies.

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: July 30, 2026 2:41:00 PM Subject: Re: PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Arthur, A Claims Administrator can deny a claim for any reason or no reason. Once it's denied you get a PQME. You have a PQME. Penalties and sanctions are per these statutes, LC 4061(h)(1), 4063 and 4650(a) and (d) and use the en banc Farris case to calculate how much you are asking for. When you file your Petitions for Penalties and/or Sanctions, of course you do not accuse the Def Atty of ignorance of the law. You accuse the Claims Administrator of ignorance of the law and slap them around with Reg 10421. You are not going to get medical treatment for a denied case at an Expedited Hearing. I don't know where in California you are getting the notion that a WCJ will overturn a denial, find injury and order medical care at an Expedited Hearing. You need a Priority Conference. 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 30, 2026 12:23:33 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? List: lawnet Sent By: Kevin Bryant Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings If both claims are denied in full, don’t you need to file for a Priority Conference to get AOE/COE adjudicated first? 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: Arthur Csillag (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 12:21 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? List: lawnet Sent By: Arthur Csillag Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi Everyone, I have a case where UCLA and Sedgwick are denying a CT and specific ortho injury despite the physical medicine QME finding causation for both. The treating ortho has requested a PRP injection for the shoulder which the adjuster has denied based upon a denial of the claim. I intend on filing for an EH for medical treatment. Should I be requesting sanctions and/or penalties for this denial as I cannot see any reason why the claim is denied? Thank you in advance for any input, cases, regs, etc. that support penalties and/or sanctions. The DA is a nice guy and good to work with.  Off the record he cannot explain the denial as well. I do not wish to seek sanctions or penalties against him but against the adjuster and/or Sedgwick. 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 T he Law Office Of Arthur Csillag strives to be conscientious about using as little paper as possible. While we cannot accept official service via fax or email, we welcome receiving all other communications via email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email is confidential, privileged and/or may also contain attorney-client information or attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, use, dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies.

"Lupe Carrasco" Date: July 30, 2026 2:38:00 PM Subject: Re: PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Guadalupe Carrasco Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings You can't file for Expedited Hearing on a denied claim. You could only do that if at least one body part was accepted. You need to file for Priority Conference first. I probably wouldn't file for sanctions either until the defendant provides more information as to their basis for the denial. It wouldn't be the first time that an adjuster withholds information from their attorney. A good PC conference judge might get the defendant to accept the case. Lupe Carrasco, Esq. EASON & TAMBORNINI, ALC 1234 H Street, Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 438-1819 - main (916) 438-1820 - fax (916) 288-9149 - direct www.capcitylaw.com lupe@capcitylaw.com From: Arthur Csillag (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 12:21 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? List: lawnet Sent By: Arthur Csillag Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi Everyone, I have a case where UCLA and Sedgwick are denying a CT and specific ortho injury despite the physical medicine QME finding causation for both. The treating ortho has requested a PRP injection for the shoulder which the adjuster has denied based upon a denial of the claim. I intend on filing for an EH for medical treatment. Should I be requesting sanctions and/or penalties for this denial as I cannot see any reason why the claim is denied? Thank you in advance for any input, cases, regs, etc. that support penalties and/or sanctions. The DA is a nice guy and good to work with.  Off the record he cannot explain the denial as well. I do not wish to seek sanctions or penalties against him but against the adjuster and/or Sedgwick. 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 T he Law Office Of Arthur Csillag strives to be conscientious about using as little paper as possible. While we cannot accept official service via fax or email, we welcome receiving all other communications via email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email is confidential, privileged and/or may also contain attorney-client information or attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, use, dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies.

"Kevin Bryant" Date: July 30, 2026 2:24:00 PM Subject: Re: PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kevin Bryant Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings If both claims are denied in full, don’t you need to file for a Priority Conference to get AOE/COE adjudicated first? 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: Arthur Csillag (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 12:21 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR WHICH THE QME FOUND CAUSATION? List: lawnet Sent By: Arthur Csillag Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi Everyone, I have a case where UCLA and Sedgwick are denying a CT and specific ortho injury despite the physical medicine QME finding causation for both. The treating ortho has requested a PRP injection for the shoulder which the adjuster has denied based upon a denial of the claim. I intend on filing for an EH for medical treatment. Should I be requesting sanctions and/or penalties for this denial as I cannot see any reason why the claim is denied? Thank you in advance for any input, cases, regs, etc. that support penalties and/or sanctions. The DA is a nice guy and good to work with.  Off the record he cannot explain the denial as well. I do not wish to seek sanctions or penalties against him but against the adjuster and/or Sedgwick. 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 T he Law Office Of Arthur Csillag strives to be conscientious about using as little paper as possible. While we cannot accept official service via fax or email, we welcome receiving all other communications via email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email is confidential, privileged and/or may also contain attorney-client information or attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, use, dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies.

Hi Everyone, I have a case where UCLA and Sedgwick are denying a CT and specific ortho injury despite the physical medicine QME finding causation for both. The treating ortho has requested a PRP injection for the shoulder which the adjuster has denied based upon a denial of the claim. I intend on filing for an EH for medical treatment. Should I be requesting sanctions and/or penalties for this denial as I cannot see any reason why the claim is denied? Thank you in advance for any input, cases, regs, etc. that support penalties and/or sanctions. The DA is a nice guy and good to work with.  Off the record he cannot explain the denial as well. I do not wish to seek sanctions or penalties against him but against the adjuster and/or Sedgwick. 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 T he Law Office Of Arthur Csillag strives to be conscientious about using as little paper as possible. While we cannot accept official service via fax or email, we welcome receiving all other communications via email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email is confidential, privileged and/or may also contain attorney-client information or attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, use, dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies.

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: July 29, 2026 1:30:00 PM Subject: Re: UCSD Med Center Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings The UC Regents are a tough bunch, I grant you. I had two UCDMC cases of little value (Both female IWs) in which the Regents obtained surveillance that didn't show anything. I think by having its TPA deny injuries that are clearly industrial, their experience modification is not as high as it could be. I can tell you that Judge that I have on my UCDMC Long COVID case did not see anything was amiss when Sedgwick denied Long COVID after my client (RN) suffered two COVID infections). I can't say what I think of a Judge who agrees with Sedgwick that Long COVID is not caused by COVID. 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: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:38:39 PM Subject: [lawnet] UCSD Med Center List: lawnet Sent By: Michael Herrin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, It seems that this employer has a history of denying claims that should not be denied. My client injured his foot at work in March 2025. Every doctor that has examined him, including the pqme, indicates that the injury probably occurred in the manner described by my client. My client has been cooperative in the discovery process and has been deposed. Still denied. DA sent PQME 800 pages of nothingness, including depo transcript, in April with request for a supplemental. No change in PQME's August 2025 opinion that injury is industrial. I filed DOR for PC. At the hearing, DA tied himself in a pretzel trying to explain that, in his experience, the stress fracture of my client's foot seems more likely related to a CT than a specific, so wants pqme to opine on whether client's outside employment may have contributed to the injury. All well and good but certainly no basis for denying claim. In the meantime, DA just sent pqme 1800 more pages of nothingness with request for MMI evaluation. Now they're asking whether client might be interested in C&R. They say he can continue working there if case settles by C&R. I'm sure many IW's get the denial letter and choose not to pursue. Settling claims by C&R maintains an appearance of what? Workplace safety? Because they're self-insured they can't be worried about their premiums. What is their motivation? On the day my client was injured, at work, in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, having interacted with his supervisor several times throughout the day, my client informs his supervisor that he had injured his foot walking down the stairs between floors at the hospital. The supervisor then sends a text message, that I now have, directing my client to file an incident report with the employer, informing the employer that the injury occurred outside of the workplace outside of work hours. A complete fabrication. WTF? What can I do with that piece of evidence? This smells like insurance fraud. There is a process under insurance code to pursue qui tam action. Has anyone here had any luck going down that path? Any suggestions appreciated. Mike

"BretGraham" Date: July 29, 2026 5:38:00 AM Subject: Re: guidance on bifurcating 2 potential 70% or higher cases to settle one first Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bret Graham Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Daniel - you don’t say in post if the Covid case is a CT or specific. Because if it is a CT then you would have 2 CT cases covering the same time period which would really be the same case since even with different mechanism of injury you can only have one CT at a time( You will want to research this exact point) Alternatively, it is reasonable that the Covid case was a compensable consequence of the CT. Defense is worried that the two cases will become one OR that at least one QME will say they are inextricably intertwined so you get a joint award closing in on 100%. If you are looking at a final settlement by Stips, the. For sure you need to do the math based on AWE to see how much and when two (2) 70% cases pay vs one (1) 100% case vs. one (1) 99% case. Also before settling piecemeal, consider impact of LC 4664(c)(1) and its lifetime limits of 100% PD on various body parts/systems. Haven’t seen defense use it as much as they could and it could be a nasty surprise for sure. Bret Graham Sent from my iPhone

"Alexander Blackford" Date: July 28, 2026 4:48:00 PM Subject: Re: ortho panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Alexander Blackford Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I realize this is a little late for this particular panel, but... I recently (last three months) used Dr. Yasmeh for a QME-requested surgical consult based on CAAA reviews that said he was, well, not bad, and he seemed like the best on a list of all bad. The claim was a denied back injury for a truck driver with a 6-7mm disk bulge and radiculopathy so bad the client was bedridden for a year and needs a cane to walk. And to top it off, we had already been to trial with applicant testimony that supported this without contradiction and the trial MOH and findings were provided. Dr. Yasmeh said NO surgery necessary, only conservative care. Thankfully, the QME, Dr. Shahram Shawn Solhpour ignored him and said surgery should be provided for. So, a firm "don't let the door hit you on the way out" for Dr. Yasmeh. But a "yes, I would buy a drink" for Dr. Solhpour (but only after the claim settled to avoid any appearance of impropriety). -----Original Message----- From: james.malkin@gsscomplaw.com Sent: October 09, 2025 11:29:00 AM To: scaaa@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: ortho panel Any information on who to strike: Scott Lee, MD Siamak Yasmeh,MD

"Michael Herrin" Date: July 28, 2026 2:39:00 PM Subject: UCSD Med Center Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Michael Herrin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, It seems that this employer has a history of denying claims that should not be denied. My client injured his foot at work in March 2025. Every doctor that has examined him, including the pqme, indicates that the injury probably occurred in the manner described by my client. My client has been cooperative in the discovery process and has been deposed. Still denied. DA sent PQME 800 pages of nothingness, including depo transcript, in April with request for a supplemental. No change in PQME's August 2025 opinion that injury is industrial. I filed DOR for PC. At the hearing, DA tied himself in a pretzel trying to explain that, in his experience, the stress fracture of my client's foot seems more likely related to a CT than a specific, so wants pqme to opine on whether client's outside employment may have contributed to the injury. All well and good but certainly no basis for denying claim. In the meantime, DA just sent pqme 1800 more pages of nothingness with request for MMI evaluation. Now they're asking whether client might be interested in C&R. They say he can continue working there if case settles by C&R. I'm sure many IW's get the denial letter and choose not to pursue. Settling claims by C&R maintains an appearance of what? Workplace safety? Because they're self-insured they can't be worried about their premiums. What is their motivation? On the day my client was injured, at work, in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, having interacted with his supervisor several times throughout the day, my client informs his supervisor that he had injured his foot walking down the stairs between floors at the hospital. The supervisor then sends a text message, that I now have, directing my client to file an incident report with the employer, informing the employer that the injury occurred outside of the workplace outside of work hours. A complete fabrication. WTF? What can I do with that piece of evidence? This smells like insurance fraud. There is a process under insurance code to pursue qui tam action. Has anyone here had any luck going down that path? Any suggestions appreciated. Mike

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: July 27, 2026 2:03:00 PM Subject: Re: Death Benefit Case - the decedent died in a car accident that he caused - and he had cocaine in his system Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings If the MVA was definitely industrial and Def/DA knows it's industrial, then the last thing I would worry about as AA is responding to Def burden to prove intoxication -prong 2: the intoxicati on proximately caused the injury . Perhaps the specifics of the MVA might suggest intoxication? Did Dc'd drive 95 mph into a wall or have the cocaine in his lap or something? Let DA start trying to prove intoxication. You just sit back and wait. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:30:32 AM Subject: [lawnet] Death Benefit Case - the decedent died in a car accident that he caused - and he had cocaine in his system List: lawnet Sent By: Rando Rodriguez Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings This is a first for me. I have a death benefit case wherein the decedent was in a car accident (caused by the decedent - the decedent was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident) and I have now received an autopsy report indicating that the decedent had cocaine in his system at the time of the car accident. If the defense contends that the decedent's cocaine use caused the car accident, does that require a med-legal determination from a PQME (I assume one who specializes in Toxicology)? Can the defense hire their own toxicology expert and argue that the report should be sent to the PQME? Rando

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: July 27, 2026 12:07:00 PM Subject: Re: Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings How about these: Atty’s Fees, SAWW, COLA, and Commutation 2013 Darryl Oyas, Applicant v. California State Department of Corrections, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants , 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 174 (lexis.com), 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 174 (Lexis Advance) Attorney’s Fees--Commutation--WCAB rescinded WCJ’s 15 percent attorney’s fee award to attorney for applicant/correctional officer who incurred 100 percent permanent disability as a result of cumulative heart injury over period 11/1/97 through 11/1/2010, and returned matter to trial level, when WCAB found that (1) in making award, WCJ improperly conflated determination of what percentage of applicant’s permanent total disability award should be paid to his attorney as a reasonable fee with whether commuted value of applicant’s award should include future state average weekly wage (SAWW) increase to which applicant would be entitled under Labor Code § 4659(c), (2 ) WCJ should have exercised his discretion in determining reasonable value of applicant’s attorney’s efforts after he had determined appropriate calculation of applicant’s award , (3) while determination of annual SAWW increases may not be certain, it should not preclude WCJ from relying upon Disability Evaluation Unit’s commutation calculation which factor in COLAs in Labor Code § 4659(c), and (4) upon return to trial level, WCJ should utilize Uniform Increasing Reduction method in commuting present value of applicant’s award of permanent total disability as this method of commutation is preferred by applicant and provides greatest benefit, WCJ should first determine proper commuted value of applicant’s permanent disability award, incorporating a reasonable SAWW adjustment factor, and then determine proper percentage of award payable to applicant’s attorney, and, when making a determination regarding attorney’s fees, WCJ should consider relevant factors set forth in Policy and Procedures Manual, such as responsibility assumed by attorney, care exercised in representing applicant, time involved and results obtained. Glick v. Swift Transportation Services, LLC , ADJ11799924 (VNO) Oct. 17, 2023, Decision After Reconsideration 51 CWCR 213 Remand for Judge to Reconsider SAWW’s Role in Commutation Calculation PTD Award Failed to Account for SAWW in Setting Applicant’s Attorney Fee Board Panel Remands for Clarification of Whether DEU Commutation Considered SAWW Increases and the Inclusion of Evidence and Reasoning for the Decision Commissioners Schmitz (Deputy), Capurro, and Razo granted the attorney’s petition for reconsideration, affirmed the WCJ’s operative F&A (except by restating amounts, the start date, and other details in the PTD award), and deferred attorney fee issues for remand to the judge. The panel observed that the basis for calculation of the applicant’s attorney fee had not been “framed with specificity at the time of trial,” and had not addressed the “interaction, if any, between the statutorily mandated present value reduction [per §5101(b)], and the inclusion of SAWW adjustments” in the attorney fee calculations. The panel further asked the parties and judge to consider the “public policy considerations” of granting SAWW adjustments to applicant attorney fees. The panel noted that any question of whether the attorney had given applicant the required notice of a possible conflict of interest had been resolved by applicant’s later signed, written waiver of any claim to such a conflict. On fee commutation questions, the panel noted applicant’s contention that an award of PD indemnity should reflect an “annual increase . . . as set by the annual SAWW figures,” and that it would be error for the trial judge to include the SAWW adjustments in the award but not in calculating the amount of a commuted award. The attorney cited the panel decision, Gilmore v. Autoland Resale Center (Apr. 17, 2013, ADJ4677964 (VNO)), as holding it reasonable to allow “a fee on the entire present value of the 100% permanent disability award, including the COLA increases.” COLA adjustments . . . “ensure that a dollar tomorrow is equal to a dollar today . . . and not an additional benefit to applicant.” The panel then noted that the WCJ’s report on reconsideration cited Miramontes v. Lions Raisins (February 3, 2012, ADJ2777203 (SRO)) for the view that a “commutation of unknown future COLA adjustment was not in applicant’s best interests.” That case further stated that a commutation should be based solely on the “present value of the life pension award.” The purpose of cost of living (COLA) adjustments to applicant’s benefits was to “ensure that a dollar tomorrow is equal to a dollar today. It is simply a hedge against inflation and not an additional benefit to applicant.” The judge further noted that applicant’s counsel receives a fee on the full value of benefits applicant receives bi-weekly for the duration of his life. To award a SAWW increase on top of that fee, the WCJ argued, would be “tantamount to an investment on the value of that money for years to come at a 3% or 4.33% return.” The WCJ characterized what applicant’s attorney was asking for was to be “paid today with the value of what today’s dollar will be worth in the future,” and that applicant would bear the burden of “financing” that investment. The present Board panel noted that the record was not clear as to how the commutation here had been made, and that §5101(b) mandates that a lump sum amount requires that the “sum be reduced to present value” at the “interest rate of 3 percent per annum.” As for the commutation performed by the DEU, the panel observed that the rater issued an attorney fee calculation, commuting all remaining life pensions after their commencement using a 3 percent SAWW, apparently applying the “statutorily required 3 percent present value discount irrespective of any SAWW adjustment,” something the panel was unclear had been considered by the attorney or the judge. Accordingly, the Board panel affirmed the award and deferred the issue of attorney fees for further proceedings at the trial level, and encouraged the parties to “explore the possibility of amicable settlement” or else to crossexamine the DEU rater to further develop the record on the “interaction, if any, between the statutorily mandated present value reduction set forth in section 5101, and the inclusion of SAWW adjustments per section 4659(c) in the calculation of attorney’s fees.” Editor’s Note: Apart from calculating accurate sums for the attorney fee award in a PTD case, the issue raised is one of public policy. The judge (1) asks if an applicant’s attorney should receive a fee from benefits meant as a hedge against inflation for a seriously or completely disabled worker? (2) and sees his role as protecting the injured worker. Is that completely justified? There are seemingly a growing number of PTD claims being made and many applicant attorneys deal with multiple complex issues in achieving a PTD award. That suggests a reason that attorneys should receive a fee for a portion of all the applicant will get, including cost of living adjustments. It is difficult to imagine how the record will be augmented to satisfy the Board and is perhaps the reason the panel urged the parties and judge to reach an “amicable settlement.” The panel also notes that §5101(b) and related AD Rules 10169 and 10169.1, in setting forth present value calculations, do not take into account cost of living adjustments required by §4659(c). Should the case generate further litigation, the judge and parties will need to keep this in mind. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:00:39 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you Hollie But what about a carrier who simply does not increase the PTD in accordance with the annual SAWW increases? Mike In a message dated 7/27/2026 9:23:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings This is the law porion of the Rader case - Rader v. Ticketmaster Corp., care of Robert Monroe; State Comp. Ins. Fund, ADJ7138762 (VNO), Mar. 17, 2025, Opinion Granting Reconsideration 53 CWCR 41: The issue . . . is whether a reduction in PD indemnity relating to attorney fees falls within the Board’s jurisdiction over prior orders. According to Hodge v. WCAB (1981) 123 CA3d 50, 9 CWCR 204, 46 CCC 1034, “collateral changes” may be made to an award as long as the “merits of the basic decision” were not altered, nor the amount of benefits. The present panel notes that Hodge allowed a credit to an employer after a subsequent civil lawsuit was finalized relating to medical treatment applicant had obtained for his industrial injury more than five years after the injury date. The present panel further discussed Garcia v. IAC (1958) 162 CA2d 761, 23 CCC 149, in which a lien for attorney’s fees was permitted when new attorneys were substituted more than five years after the date of injury and successfully assisted an injured worker in resisting a petition to reopen filed by the Subsequent Injuries Fund (now Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund). The present commissioners reasoned the issue for them to decide is whether a reduction in PD indemnity relating to attorney fees falls within the Board’s jurisdiction over prior orders or if it is “tantamount to an alteration or amendment of the Award more than five years from the date of injury.” Further, assuming jurisdiction, the issue becomes whether the credit for the commutation relating to attorney fees “precludes further reduction in applicant’s current [PD] payment for attorney fees.” Accordingly, the Board panel granted applicant’s reconsideration petition, while ordering that a final decision after reconsideration be deferred pending further review of the merits of the petition and of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Editor’s Note: It is unclear why the panel felt the need for deferral of a final decision, as there did not appear to be any added evidence needed to determine whether the fee should be terminated. It would seem to be a question of law and not of fact. The final decision over these open-ended fee situations will be of great interest to the compensation community. A practical solution might be the statement in a stipulated settlement that the attorney fees awarded are to terminate when their calculated payment comes to an end or when applicant is no longer entitled to PD payments, whichever i s sooner. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 10:50:05 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. List: lawnet Sent By: Karina Delzell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think you’re looking for RADER V. TICKETMASTER CORPORATION (2025) 2025 CAL. WRK. COMP. P.D. LEXIS 86 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: Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 9:53 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hey All I'm having a memory fail. At what conference did we learn about how to penalize a carrier for failing to increase the annual SAWW amounts in a case with a total disability award? I've been looking and haven't been able to find it.  When was that? It was a great program though. Mike Richter Campbell

"Andy Katz" Date: July 24, 2026 10:43:00 PM Subject: Re: reverse SW misconduct claim? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Andy Katz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Agree with coordinating with the civil case attorney. However, I don’t see the harm of having it on file, close to the end of the SOL, though I’m assuming that Defendant cannot bootstrap their adverse theory against the Applicant using her Petition. If you file a Petition but they don’t, then it’s waived.  The Petition can sit until the recoverable amount is clear, and can be abandoned if a premature DOR or specific written discovery (rare) comes across. On Jul 24, 2026, at 10:02 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 S&W by Employee does not apply when the injury was caused by the failure of the employer to comply with any provision of law, or any safety order of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, with reference to the safety of places of employment; LC §4551(c). That is, unless she was a manager. Having OSHA certificates/training and knowledge doesn't mean she had the authority to stop doing the same activities she had always done knowing they were inherently dangerous but never having been instructed by her manager not to do them. Anyway, couldn't you file S&W on the very last day before it is time barred? Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > To: "Statewide List Service" < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 9:42:43 AM Subject: [lawnet] reverse SW misconduct claim? List: lawnet Sent By: Daniel Chin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi All - I was thinking of filing an SW misconduct claim but the thought of a potential reverse claim has stopped me in my tracks. My client worked in traffic control. She was standing in the back/bed of a stake truck, standing and receiving traffic cones from a co-worker on street level while the truck was driving.  This truck was not compliant for traffic control because it lacked safety measures such as safety lights to caution the public.  Sure enough, a car rear ended the truck and she sustained injuries. My client claims she knows the truck was not safety compliant because she herself has the OSHA certificates/training and knowledge. Despite knowing this, she still got in the truck bed to work. Would this knowledge defeat an SW Misconduct claim and potentially give rise to a reverse SW claim against my client? Thanks!

"Brian A. Grafstrom" Date: July 24, 2026 5:51:00 PM Subject: Re: VIOLENT ACT EXCEPTION - WOULD YOU ASK THE AME TO ADDRESS IT? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Grafstrom Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings This feels like a direct Psyche injury, not a compensable consequence injury. From: Arthur Csillag (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 2:28 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] VIOLENT ACT EXCEPTION - WOULD YOU ASK THE AME TO ADDRESS IT? List: lawnet Sent By: Arthur Csillag Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi everyone, I have a compensable consequence psyche claim arising from a significant orthopedic injury. The applicant's supervisor was holding an approximately 200-pound manhole cover with a lifting hook while the applicant guided it into position. The cover slipped off the hook, fell about a foot, and crushed the applicant's arm. He sustained a ruptured distal biceps tendon requiring surgery, a shoulder injury, severe scarring and reported believing at the time that he was going to lose his arm.  It was quite traumatic. There is an psyche MMI exam and psyche AME exam coming up shortly. As I understand it - Labor Code section 4660.1 generally precludes permanent psychiatric impairment when it is a compensable consequence of a physical injury unless an exception applies. My question is this : In a case with these facts, would you write to the treating psychiatrist and AME asking the physician to discuss whether the incident medically supports the violent act exception under section 4660.1(c)(2)? Or would you avoid asking the doctor to address the legal exception directly, on the ground that it is ultimately a legal determination for the WCJ? Instead, would you ask the physician to describe the severity of the force involved, the applicant's perception of the event (including his belief that he might lose his arm), whether the event was psychologically traumatic, and whether those circumstances are medically significant? My thought is that this would provide the WCJ with the factual and medical foundation necessary to determine whether the violent act exception applies, without asking the physician to render a legal conclusion. Has anyone handled this issue before, and if so, how did you approach it? Thank you for your input.  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

"Bonnie Wilson" Date: July 24, 2026 5:19:00 PM Subject: Re: VIOLENT ACT EXCEPTION - WOULD YOU ASK THE AME TO ADDRESS IT? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: madson_russell ptsd separate injury.pdf (774 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Bonnie Binder-Wilson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings This is the case you need.  It is a direct injury, not a compensable consequence.  Yes, I would ask it.  But use the language in this case. Bonnie Binder Wilson, Esq. Wilson & Wisler, LLP Attorneys at Law 21 Maple Street Salinas, California  93901 Telephone: (831) 269-3787 Facsimile: (831) 269-3783 www.doubleulaw.com *************** PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL **************** THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION IS A COMMUNICATION FROM THE LAW FIRM OF WILSON & WISLER, LLP.  THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND IS CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR WILSON & WISLER, LLP.  THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY THAT IS THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. From: Arthur Csillag (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 2:28 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] VIOLENT ACT EXCEPTION - WOULD YOU ASK THE AME TO ADDRESS IT? List: lawnet Sent By: Arthur Csillag Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi everyone, I have a compensable consequence psyche claim arising from a significant orthopedic injury. The applicant's supervisor was holding an approximately 200-pound manhole cover with a lifting hook while the applicant guided it into position. The cover slipped off the hook, fell about a foot, and crushed the applicant's arm. He sustained a ruptured distal biceps tendon requiring surgery, a shoulder injury, severe scarring and reported believing at the time that he was going to lose his arm.  It was quite traumatic. There is an psyche MMI exam and psyche AME exam coming up shortly. As I understand it - Labor Code section 4660.1 generally precludes permanent psychiatric impairment when it is a compensable consequence of a physical injury unless an exception applies. My question is this : In a case with these facts, would you write to the treating psychiatrist and AME asking the physician to discuss whether the incident medically supports the violent act exception under section 4660.1(c)(2)? Or would you avoid asking the doctor to address the legal exception directly, on the ground that it is ultimately a legal determination for the WCJ? Instead, would you ask the physician to describe the severity of the force involved, the applicant's perception of the event (including his belief that he might lose his arm), whether the event was psychologically traumatic, and whether those circumstances are medically significant? My thought is that this would provide the WCJ with the factual and medical foundation necessary to determine whether the violent act exception applies, without asking the physician to render a legal conclusion. Has anyone handled this issue before, and if so, how did you approach it? Thank you for your input.  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

Hi everyone, I have a compensable consequence psyche claim arising from a significant orthopedic injury. The applicant's supervisor was holding an approximately 200-pound manhole cover with a lifting hook while the applicant guided it into position. The cover slipped off the hook, fell about a foot, and crushed the applicant's arm. He sustained a ruptured distal biceps tendon requiring surgery, a shoulder injury, severe scarring and reported believing at the time that he was going to lose his arm.  It was quite traumatic. There is an psyche MMI exam and psyche AME exam coming up shortly. As I understand it - Labor Code section 4660.1 generally precludes permanent psychiatric impairment when it is a compensable consequence of a physical injury unless an exception applies. My question is this : In a case with these facts, would you write to the treating psychiatrist and AME asking the physician to discuss whether the incident medically supports the violent act exception under section 4660.1(c)(2)? Or would you avoid asking the doctor to address the legal exception directly, on the ground that it is ultimately a legal determination for the WCJ? Instead, would you ask the physician to describe the severity of the force involved, the applicant's perception of the event (including his belief that he might lose his arm), whether the event was psychologically traumatic, and whether those circumstances are medically significant? My thought is that this would provide the WCJ with the factual and medical foundation necessary to determine whether the violent act exception applies, without asking the physician to render a legal conclusion. Has anyone handled this issue before, and if so, how did you approach it? Thank you for your input.  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

Hi All - I was thinking of filing an SW misconduct claim but the thought of a potential reverse claim has stopped me in my tracks. My client worked in traffic control. She was standing in the back/bed of a stake truck, standing and receiving traffic cones from a co-worker on street level while the truck was driving.  This truck was not compliant for traffic control because it lacked safety measures such as safety lights to caution the public.  Sure enough, a car rear ended the truck and she sustained injuries. My client claims she knows the truck was not safety compliant because she herself has the OSHA certificates/training and knowledge. Despite knowing this, she still got in the truck bed to work. Would this knowledge defeat an SW Misconduct claim and potentially give rise to a reverse SW claim against my client? Thanks!

Because the specific injury to the right hand was accepted, the entire case is not presumed compensable merely because the carrier failed to deny the neck, shoulder, or other additional body parts within 90 days of the amended Application. The re are several cases which address this issue, i.e., Puc-Perez v. WCAB (1999) 64 CCC 595 ; Santa Fe Energy Resources v. WCAB (Matney) (1999) 64 CCC 1428 ; Clark v. WCAB (2001) 66 CCC 269 ; and Swope v. WCAB (2003) 68 CCC 1525 . In another case on this issue, i.e., Garcia v. White Apron 2012 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 575, the WCAB panel held, " The presumption of compensability in section 5402, subdivision (b) applies to circumstances where an employer has knowledge of 'an injury' and does not timely reject liability for 'the injury.'"   Amending an application is not a new claim for the purpose of denial per 5402 when defendant has already accepted the injury and the amendment is made to add other body parts. (Citations.) "In other words, section 5402 applies to a claim of injury and not to parts of body." All of these cases stand for the proposition that the presumption under LC 5402 “only applies when the employer seeks to deny industrial injury entirely” and does not require denial of each disputed body part within 90 days of the allegation after the underlying injury has been accepted. These authorities also distinguish between denying the occurrence of an industrial injury and disputing the nature and extent of that injury. Once the hand injury was accepted, the carrier could still challenge whether the same incident also caused injury to the neck, shoulder, or other body parts. Adding those body parts to the Application does not start a new 90-day period under Labor Code section 5402. The QME report may provide substantial medical evidence supporting those additional body parts, but it does not make them automatically compensable. The defendant may challenge the QME’s conclusions, seek clarification, or take the QME’s deposition. The compensability of those body parts ultimately remains an issue for the WCAB unless defendant stipulates to their compensability. As for the next step, I would request an expedited hearing rather than a priority conference if there remains an immediate dispute over medical treatment for the neck. When injury to at least one body part has been accepted, an expedited hearing may be requested concerning medical treatment or temporary disability involving a disputed body part. A priority conference is generally directed toward disputes over employment or whether an injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. Here, you said the injury itself is admitted; thus, I would think that the dispute concerns additional body parts and treatment. The judge may still redesignate the expedited hearing as an MSC if the causation issues require a m ore in depth evidentiary record. I would not rely on an “untimely denial” argument under section 5402. I would instead proceed on the existing QME opinion, the defendant’s failure to process the RFA properly, and the merits of industrial causation for the neck and other disputed body parts. Best of luck, Darin Powell -- Mitchell & Powell A Professional Law Corp. (Phone) 559.733.9898 / 559.733.5655 (Fax) www.mitchellandpowell.com

"Karen Steinitz" Date: July 23, 2026 1:09:00 PM Subject: Re: Urgent! At Expedited Hearing Now Reply to list Reply to sender Print 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

If the PTP mentioned the disputed body parts and connected them to the injury and the defense did not issue a timely 4062 objection then you can argue defense waived their objection.

If the PTP mentioned the disputed body parts and connected them to the injury and the defense did not issue a timely 4062 objection then you can argue defense waived their objection.

I don't know that there's a specific rule requiring accepting or denying body parts after a claim is already accepted. You're at an Expedited, the judge can determine body parts at the hearing. If carrier is accepting some parts of body and denying others, show that they've previously approved treatment to the disputed parts of body prior to the App being filed (assuming they did). If they didn't approve treatment to the disputed parts of body, and you believe your QME report holds up on causation to those disputed body parts, submit for the Judge to find compensable body parts based on the QME and have your client testify to cement the analysis. If DA wants to go to trial on body parts in the face of a compensable QME report, seems like a very uphill battle for them. Eman Yazdchi, Esq. Yazdchi Law, P.C. 1125 W Avenue M-14, Suite A Palmdale, CA 93551 661-273-1780 main 661-273-2738 fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This communication and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510.  This communication may contain non-public, confidential or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient (s).  The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable laws.  If you are not the intended recipient or have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this communication, including attachments, without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. On Jul 23, 2026, at 10:24 AM, Karen Steinitz (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:  List: lawnet Sent By: Karen Steinitz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings 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

"Karen Steinitz" Date: July 23, 2026 12:24:00 PM Subject: Urgent! At Expedited Hearing Now Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Karen Steinitz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings 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

"Jacob Basta" Date: July 22, 2026 11:59:00 PM Subject: Compensable Consequences and Subrogation Qs Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Jacob Basta Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello All! Rundown of the case: Client got injured in March to his right arm/elbow and had surgery on it and is in post-op. Client also injured his left arm/elbow later in June (at the airport pulling luggage) and had private treatment and also the same surgery performed on that arm. Client then retains me as attorney due to uncertainty regarding how work comp treats the new injury medicals (and TD/PD associated with it). I amended the DWC-1 and filed application with both arms for the same March date. Sent letter to existing PTP asking him to comment on the new injury. Client also talked with PTP about it. PTP thinks we can get it accepted through QME commenting on it (no panel yet, will pull one in the next week). QME has to comment on both arms since it is alleged on the application. Client's private insurance company now declared that they are not responsible. Client putting pressure on me to make sure this all works out. Is there a world in which work comp relentlessly denies the new body part and refuse to pay the existing 52k surgery on the left arm? Will client ever have to worry about paying up? Sorry if this feels like a dumb question but I am a fairly new attorney.

cognitorsj@aol.com Date: July 21, 2026 2:32:00 PM Subject: Re: Industrial Suicide Question Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Darin I LIKE the civil aspect.  Lying to the worker is way outside the scope of workers' comp and has been found to subject the employer and the insurance company to civil liability.  If the threat and the lie be tangentially connected as a cause to the suicide, there may be a good case there! School custodian wrongfully terminated after injury. $35.5M. Santa Cruz County. Mike Richter Campbell In a message dated 7/21/2026 11:59:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Darin Powell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings My two cents: Comp claim: possible but difficult. The main barriers are LC 3208.3, the good-faith personnel-action defense, post-termination issues, and the dependency problem. The practical problem that I see is who is your applicant if the parents are not actual dependents?  If he was not receiving psychiatric treatment before his passing, what different does a CT or a specific injury event make? Civil theory: potentially more interesting if the employer knowingly made a false arrest threat. If you can prove that the employer’s conduct was outside the compensation bargain, i.e., knowingly false threats of arrest, intentional deceit, or conduct not in good-faith personnel administration, there would definitely be a potentially stronger civil case based on wrongful death / IIED / fraud-deceit / negligent misrepresentation or undertaking / Bane Act coercion analysis (i.e., interference with someone’s rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion ). Immediate concern: statute of limitations is a major concern. If no action has been taken since February 2024, this needs urgent review. Best of luck. Darin Powell -- Mitchell & Powell A Professional Law Corp. (Phone) 559.733.9898 / 559.733.5655 (Fax) www.mitchellandpowell.com

Labor Code 4650(b)(1): If the injury causes permanent disability, the first payment shall be made within 14 days after the date of last payment of temporary disability indemnity... Exception - LC 4650(b) (2) : Prior to an award of permanent disability indemnity, a permanent disability indemnity payment shall not be required if the employer has offered the employee a position that pays at least 85 percent of the wages and compensation paid to the employee at the time of injury or if the employee is employed in a position that pays at least 100 percent of the wages and compensation paid to the employee at the time of injury, provided that when an award of permanent disability indemnity is made, the amount then due shall be calculated from the last date for which temporary disability indemnity was paid, or the date the employee’s disability became permanent and stationary, whichever is earlier. 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.

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: July 21, 2026 11:31:00 AM Subject: Re: Industrial Suicide Question Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you, everyone, for the responses. I will continue to look into it. There were no dependents. Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From: Arthur Csillag (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:21 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] Industrial Suicide Question List: lawnet Sent By: Arthur Csillag Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Beatriz, This is a very sad case. I would file a CT death claim immediately for the parents. 1.  Obtain the complete personnel file. 2.  Obtain the investigation and/or internal investigation records relating to the alleged "gross misconduct". 3.  Any written, recorded and/or transcribed statements. 4. HR notes, surveillance records . 5. Any and all communications regarding the alleged threat of arrest. 6. Find out and determine exactly who told him he would be arrested, whether anyone actually contacted law enforcement, whether anyone represented that charges had been filed, and whether anyone knew those statements were false. 7.  Obtain the coroner's file, death investigation, suicidenote, (if one exists beyond the text message. 8.  Obtain the decedent's phone records and text messages. 9.  Obtain all mental health records. 10.  Try to interview coworkers . The absence of a police report does not necessarily establish that the employer lied.  They  may have intended to report the matter, may have consulted law enforcement, or the decedent may simply have misunderstood what was said.  This is critical to determine. Find out whether the termination meeting itself constituted a sudden, extraordinary employment event resulting in psychiatric injury.  This is worth exploring through psyche evidence. Immediately send out a preservation of evidence letter - certified mail, via fax and via email if possible.  Ask to  preserve emails, textss, security video, HR records, investigation materials, and electronically stored information. These are my initial thoughts.  Good luck. 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 On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 7:06 PM Crystal Forsher (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Crystal Forsher Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings So sorry to hear about this sad situation. Are there any dependents? Crystal C. Forsher, ESQ. Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist CAAA Central Coast Chapter President Herreras & Forsher, LLP MAILING ADDRESS PO BOX 1668 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 P: (805) 473-8550 F: (805) 473-8583 E: Crystal.forsher@herrerasforsher.com W: www.herrerasforsher.com Serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties for all your Workers' Compensation needs. This message is protected by the Electronic Communications Act, 19 U.S.C., Sections 2510-2521, and is confidential and is subject to privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege. The information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the identified recipient. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us. From: Beatriz Trejo (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 5:10 PM To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Subject: [lawnet] Industrial Suicide Question List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, A client just told me a difficult story about her son. First, this happened in February of 2024, so there may be a SOL issue there. My client’s son was 21 years old at the time and working for a large store. He was having issues with a female supervisor. The issues came to a boiling point, and an unknown incident occurred at work, and he was terminated for “gross misconduct.” Apparently, he was told during the meeting that he would be arrested for his actions. The parents don’t know what actually happened, and the only paperwork they have mentions misconduct.  Three days later, he sends a family member a text message stating that he will be arrested for his actions at work and will take his own life. He commits suicide. The family later finds out that there was no police report for his actions at work. No arrest warrant. Was there an industrial injury at the time of the termination? Did the employer cause the suicide by lying about the arrest? Any thoughts on this one? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

Beatriz, This is a very sad case. I would file a CT death claim immediately for the parents. 1.  Obtain the complete personnel file. 2.  Obtain the investigation and/or internal investigation records relating to the alleged "gross misconduct". 3.  Any written, recorded and/or transcribed statements. 4. HR notes, surveillance records . 5. Any and all communications regarding the alleged threat of arrest. 6. Find out and determine exactly who told him he would be arrested, whether anyone actually contacted law enforcement, whether anyone represented that charges had been filed, and whether anyone knew those statements were false. 7.  Obtain the coroner's file, death investigation, suicidenote, (if one exists beyond the text message. 8.  Obtain the decedent's phone records and text messages. 9.  Obtain all mental health records. 10.  Try to interview coworkers . The absence of a police report does not necessarily establish that the employer lied.  They  may have intended to report the matter, may have consulted law enforcement, or the decedent may simply have misunderstood what was said.  This is critical to determine. Find out whether the termination meeting itself constituted a sudden, extraordinary employment event resulting in psychiatric injury.  This is worth exploring through psyche evidence. Immediately send out a preservation of evidence letter - certified mail, via fax and via email if possible.  Ask to  preserve emails, textss, security video, HR records, investigation materials, and electronically stored information. These are my initial thoughts.  Good luck. 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

cognitorsj@aol.com Date: July 20, 2026 7:31:00 PM Subject: Re: Industrial Suicide Question Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings First thought is that the employer lied to him, apparently causing egregious harm. Second thought is that you need to find out what happened at work.  You'll need to find co-employees that witnessed it.  You can file an death claim.  Employer will claim personnel action defense. There are rules about whether suicide is going to be considered industrial or not.  You won't know what the facts are unless you file the application. There's no "Summary Judgement" in comp, so along with the application, I would file a request for the deceased personnel file, all human relations notes, claims, complaints, etc., and set the depositions for the supervisor, then human resources person, set the depositions of any and all witnesses, you'll get their names, hopefully, in the reports, or you can wait until you get the supervisor and human resources depositions. Those are my quick, "I'm tired of reading about allostatic load" ideas. Mike Richter Campbell In a message dated 7/20/2026 5:10:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, A client just told me a difficult story about her son. First, this happened in February of 2024, so there may be a SOL issue there. My client’s son was 21 years old at the time and working for a large store. He was having issues with a female supervisor. The issues came to a boiling point, and an unknown incident occurred at work, and he was terminated for “gross misconduct.” Apparently, he was told during the meeting that he would be arrested for his actions. The parents don’t know what actually happened, and the only paperwork they have mentions misconduct.  Three days later, he sends a family member a text message stating that he will be arrested for his actions at work and will take his own life. He commits suicide. The family later finds out that there was no police report for his actions at work. No arrest warrant. Was there an industrial injury at the time of the termination? Did the employer cause the suicide by lying about the arrest? Any thoughts on this one? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Beatriz A. Trejo" Date: July 20, 2026 7:11:00 PM Subject: Industrial Suicide Question Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Beatriz Trejo Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, A client just told me a difficult story about her son. First, this happened in February of 2024, so there may be a SOL issue there. My client’s son was 21 years old at the time and working for a large store. He was having issues with a female supervisor. The issues came to a boiling point, and an unknown incident occurred at work, and he was terminated for “gross misconduct.” Apparently, he was told during the meeting that he would be arrested for his actions. The parents don’t know what actually happened, and the only paperwork they have mentions misconduct.  Three days later, he sends a family member a text message stating that he will be arrested for his actions at work and will take his own life. He commits suicide. The family later finds out that there was no police report for his actions at work. No arrest warrant. Was there an industrial injury at the time of the termination? Did the employer cause the suicide by lying about the arrest? Any thoughts on this one? Beatriz A. Trejo Partner, Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark Certified Legal Specialist in Workers’ Compensation by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 1731 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA | 93301 (661) 323-4000 | btrejo@chainlaw.com  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

"Anthony Polakov" Date: August 06, 2026 5:08:00 PM Subject: Re: NEED INPUT RE INTERNAL AND NUERO AMES Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Anthony S. Polakov Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi Art: Fink is the best of the bunch on that list. Anees is a washout.  Shorr is ok.  I would not use Espy. As for internal,  Kramer is the best.  Grodan is repped by Marlena Garland but he is not always reliable.  Alpern is good as well. Anthony S. Polakov, Esq. Stoll, Nussbaum & Polakov, APC 11620 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310)996-7500 (310)575-4353 Fax apolakov@stolllaw.com Please take notice that Stoll, Nussbaum & Polakov is under a mandatory work from home order due to the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, our physical office is closed and all employees are working remotely in hopes of doing our part to slow the spread of COVID-19.  We ask that all correspondence, pleadings, discovery and/or other communications be electronically sent via email, dropbox, or other electronic means to mail@stolllaw.com until further notice.  Any communications sent via U.S. Mail, and/or personal or overnight delivery will encounter significant delays in receipt because all mail will be forwarded and remotely processed .  These delays can be avoided by sending all communications by email, dropbox and/or other electronic means to the following address: mail@stolllaw.com . PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS : 11620 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310.996.7500 office 310.575.4353 fax From: Arthur Csillag (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 2:46 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] NEED INPUT RE INTERNAL AND NUERO AMES List: lawnet Sent By: Arthur Csillag Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi All, I have an admitted ortho injury. PTP says based upon studies that applicant's pain contributed to her ischemic attack while also contributing to afib. He has recommended an internist and neuro. This is a City of LA case.  We are required to get to an AME on their list as it is an ADR case. The internal AMEs are: 1.  Dr. Stuart Kramer, 2. Dr. Paul Grodan, and 3. Dr. Harvey Alpern The neuro AMEs are: 1. Clarke D. Dspy, MD  2.  Ezekiel Fink, MD  3. Robert ShorrKhaled Anees, MD I think Alpern is not great.  I like Fink. Any input on these physicians would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.   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

Hi Brian - Be very cautious about FCE's offered by the defense.  Check out their backgrounds very carefully. Find out what others think of him. Get his CV. What's his experience like?  How long has he been doing this? Has he worked for both sides?  Find out his reputation. An FCE can make or break a case. If you can get Alireza Bagherian DC Rehabilitation Center 3580 California St #102, San Francisco 415-921-6200 I would use him - he was fantastic for me in a very serious injury case of mine. I  was able to get the State Fund to agree to him. He came to LA from San Francisco to evaluate my client. I would even pay to have the client go to San Francisco to be evaluated by him, if need be. 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 T he Law Office Of Arthur Csillag strives to be conscientious about using as little paper as possible. While we cannot accept official service via fax or email, we welcome receiving all other communications via email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email is confidential, privileged and/or may also contain attorney-client information or attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, use, dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies.

Hi Brian - Be very cautious about FCE's offered by the defense.  Check out their backgrounds very carefully. Find out what others think of him. Get his CV. What's his experience like?  How long has he been doing this? Has he worked for both sides?  Find out his reputation. An FCE can make or break a case. If you can get Alireza Bagherian DC Rehabilitation Center 3580 California St #102, San Francisco 415-921-6200 I would use him - he was fantastic for me in a very serious injury case of mine. I  was able to get the State Fund to agree to him. He came to LA from San Francisco to evaluate my client. I would even pay to have the client go to San Francisco to be evaluated by him, if need be. 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 T he Law Office Of Arthur Csillag strives to be conscientious about using as little paper as possible. While we cannot accept official service via fax or email, we welcome receiving all other communications via email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email is confidential, privileged and/or may also contain attorney-client information or attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, use, dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies.

"Ali Nosrat" Date: July 29, 2026 1:29:00 PM Subject: Re: Help with TD Step-up/Increase Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Ali Nosrat Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi Hollie, thank you for your input, her spouse was helping her before (out of courtesy?) but after the relationship with her employer, those have dried up. She got a part time job after the injury at CVS, but couldn't handle that either. Regarding inflation, that's a good point. I'll talk to her about it, but all she wants me to do at this point is to get her more money. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: July 24, 2026 11:25:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Help with TD Step-up/Increase Do you have her wage statement from 5/31/22 - 5/31/23? I think you may not have all the facts. If IW was able to survive on her AWE when she was working, her TD rate should not be that much less than her Net income when she was working. If she could not survive on her AWE while she was working, where did her extra income come from to bring her up to wages she could survive on? Concurrent employment? Roommate? Child support? Family? (Recall that inflation rate in May 2022 was quite high, 8.6% over the last twelve months, down to 4.0% in May 2023.) Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. [ https://the-compensation-law-center.business.site/ ' The Compensation Law Center ] Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 2:55:00 PM Subject: [lawnet] Help with TD Step-up/Increase List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:lawyer@legalknights.com ' Ali Nosrat ] [ mailto:lawyer@legalknights.com?subject=Re%3A%20Help%20with%20TD%20Step-up%2FIncrease ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Help%20with%20TD%20Step-up%2FIncrease ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Hello, client was sexually and mentally abused by employer (acupuncturist) for about 5 years; she worked part time; resigned on 5/31/2023; psych QME put her on TTD starting 10/29/24; she now receives around $900 in TD, which she cannot survive on; can an argument be made that cost of living has dramatically increased during the past couple/few years and she should be entitled to more? She received EDD for a very short time based on a chiro that has not provided us with any reports and was non-compliant with SDT. I've done as much research as I can and I can't find anything that would support any arguments to get her more TD, which is unfortunate. Thank you in advance.

cognitorsj@aol.com Date: July 27, 2026 12:01:00 PM Subject: Re: Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you Hollie But what about a carrier who simply does not increase the PTD in accordance with the annual SAWW increases? Mike In a message dated 7/27/2026 9:23:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings This is the law porion of the Rader case - Rader v. Ticketmaster Corp., care of Robert Monroe; State Comp. Ins. Fund, ADJ7138762 (VNO), Mar. 17, 2025, Opinion Granting Reconsideration 53 CWCR 41: The issue . . . is whether a reduction in PD indemnity relating to attorney fees falls within the Board’s jurisdiction over prior orders. According to Hodge v. WCAB (1981) 123 CA3d 50, 9 CWCR 204, 46 CCC 1034, “collateral changes” may be made to an award as long as the “merits of the basic decision” were not altered, nor the amount of benefits. The present panel notes that Hodge allowed a credit to an employer after a subsequent civil lawsuit was finalized relating to medical treatment applicant had obtained for his industrial injury more than five years after the injury date. The present panel further discussed Garcia v. IAC (1958) 162 CA2d 761, 23 CCC 149, in which a lien for attorney’s fees was permitted when new attorneys were substituted more than five years after the date of injury and successfully assisted an injured worker in resisting a petition to reopen filed by the Subsequent Injuries Fund (now Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund). The present commissioners reasoned the issue for them to decide is whether a reduction in PD indemnity relating to attorney fees falls within the Board’s jurisdiction over prior orders or if it is “tantamount to an alteration or amendment of the Award more than five years from the date of injury.” Further, assuming jurisdiction, the issue becomes whether the credit for the commutation relating to attorney fees “precludes further reduction in applicant’s current [PD] payment for attorney fees.” Accordingly, the Board panel granted applicant’s reconsideration petition, while ordering that a final decision after reconsideration be deferred pending further review of the merits of the petition and of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Editor’s Note: It is unclear why the panel felt the need for deferral of a final decision, as there did not appear to be any added evidence needed to determine whether the fee should be terminated. It would seem to be a question of law and not of fact. The final decision over these open-ended fee situations will be of great interest to the compensation community. A practical solution might be the statement in a stipulated settlement that the attorney fees awarded are to terminate when their calculated payment comes to an end or when applicant is no longer entitled to PD payments, whichever i s sooner. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 10:50:05 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. List: lawnet Sent By: Karina Delzell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think you’re looking for RADER V. TICKETMASTER CORPORATION (2025) 2025 CAL. WRK. COMP. P.D. LEXIS 86 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: Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 9:53 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hey All I'm having a memory fail. At what conference did we learn about how to penalize a carrier for failing to increase the annual SAWW amounts in a case with a total disability award? I've been looking and haven't been able to find it.  When was that? It was a great program though. Mike Richter Campbell

"Robert Skrinyaz" Date: July 27, 2026 11:49:00 AM Subject: Re: Who to strike - Ortho QME panel Alexandra Stavrakis MD or Richard Nussbaum Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Robert Skrinyaz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I usually don't favor Nussbaum or Christ as treaters or evaluators; although she is unknown to me, Dr. Stavrakis does have a pretty impressive CV. I suppose that means that if her reports are terrific, they will be well-written and detailed, and if her reports are terrible, they will be well-written and detailed. - R -----Original Message----- From: acsillaglaw@gmail.com Sent: July 24, 2026 12:45:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Who to strike - Ortho QME panel Alexandra Stavrakis MD or Richard Nussbaum Hi Jignesh - Nussbaum is unpredictable. I have had some good results, but also some bad ones. Interestingly I had him on a personal jury trial many years back in Van Nuys and came out with a decent verdict in a car crash/broken ankle case. Call me privately for more info. Good luck. Art *Arthur Csillag, Esq.* *acsillaglaw@gmail.com <ascsillaglaw@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 On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 10:14 AM Jignesh Bhatt (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Jignesh Bhatt <jignesh.bhatt@forthepeople.com> > Reply To Sender > <jignesh.bhatt@forthepeople.com?subject=Re%3A%20Who%20to%20strike%20-%20Ortho%20QME%20panel%20Alexandra%20Stavrakis%20MD%20or%20Richard%20Nussbaum> > Reply To List > <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20Who%20to%20strike%20-%20Ortho%20QME%20panel%20Alexandra%20Stavrakis%20MD%20or%20Richard%20Nussbaum> > Search <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> > Settings > <http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> > > TGIF, > > Young client with serious back injury. DA obtained an orthopedic qme panel > with the following: > Alexandra I Stavrakis MD > Richard E Nussbaum MD > Alexander B Christ MD > > Listserve show Dr. Chris is fine. Dr. Nussbaum sounds familiar, but I > can't remember whether it was positive, and Dr. Stavrakis is new to me. > > I always appreciate the input. > >

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: July 27, 2026 11:24:00 AM Subject: Re: Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings This is the law porion of the Rader case - Rader v. Ticketmaster Corp., care of Robert Monroe; State Comp. Ins. Fund, ADJ7138762 (VNO), Mar. 17, 2025, Opinion Granting Reconsideration 53 CWCR 41: The issue . . . is whether a reduction in PD indemnity relating to attorney fees falls within the Board’s jurisdiction over prior orders. According to Hodge v. WCAB (1981) 123 CA3d 50, 9 CWCR 204, 46 CCC 1034, “collateral changes” may be made to an award as long as the “merits of the basic decision” were not altered, nor the amount of benefits. The present panel notes that Hodge allowed a credit to an employer after a subsequent civil lawsuit was finalized relating to medical treatment applicant had obtained for his industrial injury more than five years after the injury date. The present panel further discussed Garcia v. IAC (1958) 162 CA2d 761, 23 CCC 149, in which a lien for attorney’s fees was permitted when new attorneys were substituted more than five years after the date of injury and successfully assisted an injured worker in resisting a petition to reopen filed by the Subsequent Injuries Fund (now Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund). The present commissioners reasoned the issue for them to decide is whether a reduction in PD indemnity relating to attorney fees falls within the Board’s jurisdiction over prior orders or if it is “tantamount to an alteration or amendment of the Award more than five years from the date of injury.” Further, assuming jurisdiction, the issue becomes whether the credit for the commutation relating to attorney fees “precludes further reduction in applicant’s current [PD] payment for attorney fees.” Accordingly, the Board panel granted applicant’s reconsideration petition, while ordering that a final decision after reconsideration be deferred pending further review of the merits of the petition and of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Editor’s Note: It is unclear why the panel felt the need for deferral of a final decision, as there did not appear to be any added evidence needed to determine whether the fee should be terminated. It would seem to be a question of law and not of fact. The final decision over these open-ended fee situations will be of great interest to the compensation community. A practical solution might be the statement in a stipulated settlement that the attorney fees awarded are to terminate when their calculated payment comes to an end or when applicant is no longer entitled to PD payments, whichever i s sooner. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 10:50:05 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. List: lawnet Sent By: Karina Delzell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think you’re looking for RADER V. TICKETMASTER CORPORATION (2025) 2025 CAL. WRK. COMP. P.D. LEXIS 86 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: Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 9:53 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Memory Fail - Seminar about IR failing to add SAWW amounts annually. List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hey All I'm having a memory fail. At what conference did we learn about how to penalize a carrier for failing to increase the annual SAWW amounts in a case with a total disability award? I've been looking and haven't been able to find it.  When was that? It was a great program though. Mike Richter Campbell

"Jignesh Bhatt" Date: July 24, 2026 12:14:00 PM Subject: Who to strike - Ortho QME panel Alexandra Stavrakis MD or Richard Nussbaum Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Jignesh Bhatt Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings TGIF, Young client with serious back injury. DA obtained an orthopedic qme panel with the following: Alexandra I Stavrakis MD Richard E Nussbaum MD Alexander B Christ MD Listserve show Dr. Chris is fine. Dr. Nussbaum sounds familiar, but I can't remember whether it was positive, and Dr. Stavrakis is new to me. I always appreciate the input.

"Andrew Nahl" Date: July 24, 2026 10:30:00 AM Subject: CHIRO QME PANEL Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Andrew Nahl Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have the following chiros on a back, shoulder and leg injury when my client fell after the step on his delvivery van gave way: John Wyatt Sayed Miry Timothy Coykendall Any input is greatly appreciated.

"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: 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.

"Ali Nosrat" Date: July 29, 2026 1:32:00 PM Subject: Re: Help with TD Step-up/Increase Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Ali Nosrat Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi counsel, thanks for your input; She got a part time job after the injury at CVS, but couldn't handle that either. Her employment law attorney got her a $50k settlement so I think she survived off of that for a little while. -Ali -----Original Message----- From: iodlaw@sbcglobal.net Sent: July 28, 2026 12:03:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Help with TD Step-up/Increase What did she do for the 1 1/2 years off work before TTD started? Does her PI atty have any suggestions? Can you use the theory that she could have been working full time after she left and thus entitled to higher TTD?rate? -----Original Message----- From: lawyer@legalknights.com Sent: July 23, 2026 4:55:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Help with TD Step-up/Increase Hello, client was sexually and mentally abused by employer (acupuncturist) for about 5 years; she worked part time; resigned on 5/31/2023; psych QME put her on TTD starting 10/29/24; she now receives around $900 in TD, which she cannot survive on; can an argument be made that cost of living has dramatically increased during the past couple/few years and she should be entitled to more? She received EDD for a very short time based on a chiro that has not provided us with any reports and was non-compliant with SDT. I've done as much research as I can and I can't find anything that would support any arguments to get her more TD, which is unfortunate. Thank you in advance.