AI Analysis:
This message is highly relevant to Dr. Linda Cocchiarella's role as a medical evaluator (PQME). The attorney explicitly references a PQME context, discusses Dr. Cocchiarella's apportionment findings and causation opinions (industrial vs. non-industrial) for a workers' compensation case involving a police officer's heart attack — all core QME/AME evaluation functions. The message details: (1) unfounded apportionment and non-industrial causation findings that required two depositions to reverse, (2) the doctor's willingness to backtrack under deposition pressure, suggesting inconsistent or poorly-supported medical-legal opinions, and (3) a clear panel strike recommendation ('would certainly strike her from a PQME list in the future'). All content pertains exclusively to her role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
Hi Scott, I took Dr. Cocchiarella's deposition 2 times on one case due to her unfounded apportionment and finding of non-industrial causation for heart trouble in a police officer who had a heart attack on the job. After the 1st depo, she started back tracking and after the 2nd depo, and production of a supplemental report, she reversed her opinion on apportionment (in at least one regard) and found industrial causation. I ended up getting what I wanted from her during my depositions but would certainly strike her from a PQME list in the future. G. Lauren Belger Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization Inland Empire Work Injury Law 40960 California Oaks Rd. #208 Murrieta, CA 92562 800.674.7672 (ph) 909.437.8950 (cell) This email is intended only for the designated recipient(s). This message may contain confidential or privileged information protected by local, state, or federal regulations, including HIPAA. If you are not the intended recipient, any distribution or copying of this communication, or any attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete this email and any attachments. Thank you.
AI Analysis:
This message is directly and entirely about Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator). The original message from Scott Blumen explicitly discusses: (1) a PQME report she authored involving a COVID/respiratory claim, (2) her disability ratings for asthma and hypertension, (3) concerns about the quality and thoroughness of her medical-legal report (specifically the lack of explanation for 40% apportionment to pre-existing hypertension), (4) her credibility and performance under cross-examination/deposition. The reply from Lawrence Whiting addresses litigation strategy around her QME report, referencing case law outcomes. All content is squarely within the QME/AME medical evaluator context with zero PTP/STP treatment references.
"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: November 14, 2024 7:25:00 PM Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I would recco a thorough trial brief as to why there is no second chance. Multiple cases in your favor (although mulitiple wishy washy cases as well.) -----Original Message----- From: scott@scottblumenlaw.com Sent: November 14, 2024 5:13:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Hello, Got a PQME report from her involving a nurse with accepted COVID claim. Respiratory issues, but RTW no restrictions. Dr. Cocchiarella gave pretty fair ratings asthma and hypertension but apportioned 40% hypertension to pre-existing with zero explanation. At our board, we would need to develop the record before it would ever get to trial. Given she wrote the Guides, I expected a more thorough analysis, or frankly, any analysis, on this issue. Which begs the question: How does she handle cross examination, if anyone has gone down that road before. All thoughts are welcome! TYIA. SCOTT Scott M. Blumen, Esq., Certified Legal Specialist Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com
AI Analysis:
Message explicitly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a PQME (Panel QME). Content directly addresses her medical-legal report quality, specifically: (1) her apportionment finding of 40% to pre-existing hypertension with zero explanation, (2) concern that her apportionment findings lack substantial medical evidence and are not compliant with Escobedo (a key legal standard for apportionment in CA workers' comp), (3) her disability ratings for asthma and hypertension, and (4) her performance under cross-examination/deposition. The original poster also notes she authored the AMA Guides, raising expectations for analytical thoroughness in her QME reports. All content is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context with no PTP/STP treatment references.
"Dane P. Gilliam" Date: November 14, 2024 5:19:00 PM Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Reply to list Reply to sender Print Scott- Why depose her if her apportionment findings are not substantial medical evidence and not compliant with Escobedo ? DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x 213 Fax: (949) 732-6291 Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Scott M. Blumen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 3:13 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL][lawnet] QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose List: lawnet Sent By: Scott M. Blumen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, Got a PQME report from her involving a nurse with accepted COVID claim. Respiratory issues, but RTW no restrictions. Dr. Cocchiarella gave pretty fair ratings asthma and hypertension but apportioned 40% hypertension to pre-existing with zero explanation. At our board, we would need to develop the record before it would ever get to trial. Given she wrote the Guides, I expected a more thorough analysis, or frankly, any analysis, on this issue. Which begs the question: How does she handle cross examination, if anyone has gone down that road before. All thoughts are welcome! TYIA. SCOTT Scott M. Blumen, Esq., Certified Legal Specialist Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Dr. Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator). The original email from Scott Blumen raises substantive QME evaluation quality concerns: (1) her apportionment of 40% hypertension to pre-existing conditions with 'zero explanation,' (2) the quality and thoroughness of her medical-legal report, (3) her ratings on asthma and hypertension, and (4) her performance under cross-examination/deposition. The follow-up from Charles Rondeau requests a copy of her QME report, further confirming the medical evaluator context. All content is squarely within the QME/AME evaluation domain — report quality, rating methodology, apportionment analysis, and deposition track record.
"Charles Rondeau" Date: November 14, 2024 5:17:00 PM Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Reply to list Reply to sender Print Hi Mr. Blumen. Would you kindly post a copy of Dr. Cocchiarella’s report so the listseve? Charles R. Rondeau The Rondeau Law Firm Los Angeles ◊ El Segundo Tel: (877) 860-7377 ◊ Fax: (877) 860-7371 charles@rondeaufirm.com NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored. Any unintended transmission shall not constitute and should not be considered a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable evidentiary privileges. From: Scott M. Blumen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 3:13 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose List: lawnet Sent By: Scott M. Blumen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, Got a PQME report from her involving a nurse with accepted COVID claim. Respiratory issues, but RTW no restrictions. Dr. Cocchiarella gave pretty fair ratings asthma and hypertension but apportioned 40% hypertension to pre-existing with zero explanation. At our board, we would need to develop the record before it would ever get to trial. Given she wrote the Guides, I expected a more thorough analysis, or frankly, any analysis, on this issue. Which begs the question: How does she handle cross examination, if anyone has gone down that road before. All thoughts are welcome! TYIA. SCOTT Scott M. Blumen, Esq., Certified Legal Specialist Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com
AI Analysis:
This message is directly and entirely about Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator). The attorney explicitly references a PQME report she authored, discusses the quality and thoroughness of her medical-legal ratings (asthma and hypertension), critiques her apportionment analysis (40% to pre-existing hypertension with no explanation), references her credentials as author of the AMA Guides, and solicits feedback on her performance under cross-examination. All content is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context with zero treatment/PTP references.
"Scott M. Blumen" Date: November 14, 2024 5:13:00 PM Subject: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Scott M. Blumen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, Got a PQME report from her involving a nurse with accepted COVID claim. Respiratory issues, but RTW no restrictions. Dr. Cocchiarella gave pretty fair ratings asthma and hypertension but apportioned 40% hypertension to pre-existing with zero explanation. At our board, we would need to develop the record before it would ever get to trial. Given she wrote the Guides, I expected a more thorough analysis, or frankly, any analysis, on this issue. Which begs the question: How does she handle cross examination, if anyone has gone down that road before. All thoughts are welcome! TYIA. SCOTT Scott M. Blumen, Esq., Certified Legal Specialist Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda K. Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel selection. She appears on an internal medicine panel, and archive feedback about her as a medical evaluator is directly cited: 'Stay away', 'bad reports', and 'scary'. The thread also involves panel strike strategy, with another attorney confirming the strikes are correct. This is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context — panel recommendations, report quality concerns, and strike decisions are all core medical evaluator assessment criteria.
Steven Louie Date: September 06, 2019 5:47:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: Internal & Psyche Panels Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Steven Louie Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you for the responses. -Steven Louie -----Original Message----- From: wixen@sbcglobal.net Sent: September 06, 2019 3:25:00 PM To: scaaa@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Internal & Psyche Panels Correct. On Friday, September 6, 2019, 12:28:52 PM PDT, Anthony S. Polakov (scaaa listserver) wrote: #yiv4115185230 .yiv4115185230noresizefonts {}#yiv4115185230 @media screen and (max-width:600px)screen and ( _filtered_a ){#yiv4115185230 #yiv4115185230MCrightSidebar {border:none !important;width:125px !important;}#yiv4115185230 #yiv4115185230MCmainContent {padding-right:0px !important;}} ' List: scaaa Sent By: Anthony S. Polakov ' ' Reply To Sender ' Reply To List ' Search ' Settings ' You are correct in your strikes. Anthony S. Polakov, Esq. Stoll, Nussbaum & Polakov, APC 11601 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310)996-7500 (310)575-4353 Fax apolakov@stolllaw.com From: Steven Louie (scaaa listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 12:10 PM To: SCAAA Chapter Subject: [scaaa] Internal & Psyche Panels ' List: scaaa Sent By: Steven Louie ' ' Reply To Sender ' Reply To List ' Search ' Settings ' Hello Mates: I have panels in internal medicine and psychiatry. The applicant (female) is an employee of the City of Pasadena. ' Internal: Linda K. Cocchiarella Syed O. Tirmizi Minal W. Borsada ' Psychiatry: Barbara J. Strong Charles H. McDaniel Ryan K. Davis ' ' Archives show: Cocchiarella - "Stay away"; "bad reports"; "scary" Tirmizi - OK reviews in 2018; one review: "terrible reports" Borsada - Positive feedback since 2017 ' Archives show: Strong - No recent reviews in 2019 or 2018. But anecdotally, will find injury and small PD, but will not hold up well in cross-examination. Charles McDaniel - No comments about McDaniel in 2018-2019 Davis - One OK in 2019; no review specific reviews pre-2019 ' For internal, I will strike Cocchiarella. For psyche, I will strike McDaniel as the unknown. Before I send out my strike letter, any comments or feedback from recent experience with these physicians will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. STEVEN C. LOUIE ' ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN C. LOUIE 8728 Valley Boulevard, Suite 209 ' Rosemead, CA 91770 Direct Tel: 626.569.9818 ' Direct Fax: 626.604.5226 Email: steven.louie@sbcglobal.net NOTICE: The information in this e-mail is attorney-client privileged, confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for use by the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you, the reader of this e-mail and/or its attachments, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, publishing, modification, storage or copying of this e-mail or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender at steven.louie@sbcglobal.net, and destroy all copies of this message along with any attachments.
AI Analysis:
The message directly discusses Linda K. Cocchiarella in her role as a medical evaluator on an internal medicine QME panel. The attorney Steven Louie references archive feedback about her as an evaluator ('Stay away'; 'bad reports'; 'scary') and explicitly states he will strike Cocchiarella from the panel. The subsequent replies from Anthony Polakov and Brad Wixen confirm the strike decision. This is squarely within QME/AME evaluator context — panel selection, panel strikes, and evaluator reputation based on medical-legal report quality.
BRAD WIXEN Date: September 06, 2019 3:25:00 PM Subject: Re: Internal & Psyche Panels Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Brad Wixen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Correct. On Friday, September 6, 2019, 12:28:52 PM PDT, Anthony S. Polakov (scaaa listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: scaaa Sent By: Anthony S. Polakov Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings You are correct in your strikes. Anthony S. Polakov, Esq. Stoll, Nussbaum & Polakov, APC 11601 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310)996-7500 (310)575-4353 Fax apolakov@stolllaw.com From: Steven Louie (scaaa listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 12:10 PM To: SCAAA Chapter <scaaa@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [scaaa] Internal & Psyche Panels List: scaaa Sent By: Steven Louie Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello Mates: I have panels in internal medicine and psychiatry. The applicant (female) is an employee of the City of Pasadena. Internal: Linda K. Cocchiarella Syed O. Tirmizi Minal W. Borsada Psychiatry: Barbara J. Strong Charles H. McDaniel Ryan K. Davis Archives show: Cocchiarella – “Stay away”; “bad reports”; “scary” Tirmizi – OK reviews in 2018; one review: “terrible reports” Borsada – Positive feedback since 2017 Archives show: Strong – No recent reviews in 2019 or 2018. But anecdotally, will find injury and small PD, but will not hold up well in cross-examination. Charles McDaniel – No comments about McDaniel in 2018-2019 Davis – One OK in 2019; no review specific reviews pre-2019 For internal, I will strike Cocchiarella. For psyche, I will strike McDaniel as the unknown. Before I send out my strike letter, any comments or feedback from recent experience with these physicians will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. STEVEN C. LOUIE | ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN C. LOUIE 8728 Valley Boulevard, Suite 209 | Rosemead, CA 91770 Direct Tel: 626.569.9818 | Direct Fax: 626.604.5226 Email: steven.louie@sbcglobal.net NOTICE: The information in this e-mail is attorney-client privileged, confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for use by the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you, the reader of this e-mail and/or its attachments, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, publishing, modification, storage or copying of this e-mail or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender at steven.louie@sbcglobal.net , and destroy all copies of this message along with any attachments.
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda K. Cocchiarella in the context of a QME/AME panel selection for an internal medicine evaluation. The attorney Steven Louie references archive feedback describing her as 'Stay away', 'bad reports', and 'scary' — all directly pertaining to her quality as a medical evaluator. He then states he will strike Cocchiarella from the internal medicine panel, which is a classic QME panel strike decision. Anthony Polakov confirms the strike is correct. This is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context: panel recommendations, report quality concerns, and panel strike decisions.
Anthony Polakov Date: September 06, 2019 2:29:00 PM Subject: RE: Internal & Psyche Panels Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Anthony S. Polakov Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings You are correct in your strikes. Anthony S. Polakov, Esq. Stoll, Nussbaum & Polakov, APC 11601 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310)996-7500 (310)575-4353 Fax apolakov@stolllaw.com From: Steven Louie (scaaa listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 12:10 PM To: SCAAA Chapter <scaaa@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [scaaa] Internal & Psyche Panels List: scaaa Sent By: Steven Louie Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello Mates: I have panels in internal medicine and psychiatry. The applicant (female) is an employee of the City of Pasadena. Internal: Linda K. Cocchiarella Syed O. Tirmizi Minal W. Borsada Psychiatry: Barbara J. Strong Charles H. McDaniel Ryan K. Davis Archives show: Cocchiarella – “Stay away”; “bad reports”; “scary” Tirmizi – OK reviews in 2018; one review: “terrible reports” Borsada – Positive feedback since 2017 Archives show: Strong – No recent reviews in 2019 or 2018. But anecdotally, will find injury and small PD, but will not hold up well in cross-examination. Charles McDaniel – No comments about McDaniel in 2018-2019 Davis – One OK in 2019; no review specific reviews pre-2019 For internal, I will strike Cocchiarella. For psyche, I will strike McDaniel as the unknown. Before I send out my strike letter, any comments or feedback from recent experience with these physicians will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. STEVEN C. LOUIE | ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN C. LOUIE 8728 Valley Boulevard, Suite 209 | Rosemead, CA 91770 Direct Tel: 626.569.9818 | Direct Fax: 626.604.5226 Email: steven.louie@sbcglobal.net NOTICE: The information in this e-mail is attorney-client privileged, confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for use by the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you, the reader of this e-mail and/or its attachments, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, publishing, modification, storage or copying of this e-mail or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender at steven.louie@sbcglobal.net , and destroy all copies of this message along with any attachments.
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda K. Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel selection for an internal medicine evaluation. The attorney references archived feedback about her as a medical evaluator ('Stay away'; 'bad reports'; 'scary') and states an intent to strike her from the panel. This is directly relevant QME/AME evaluator context: panel strike decision, report quality concerns, and track record in disputed evaluations. There is no treating physician (PTP/STP) context present for Cocchiarella in this message.
Steven Louie Date: September 06, 2019 2:11:00 PM Subject: Internal & Psyche Panels Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Steven Louie Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello Mates: I have panels in internal medicine and psychiatry. The applicant (female) is an employee of the City of Pasadena. Internal: Linda K. Cocchiarella Syed O. Tirmizi Minal W. Borsada Psychiatry: Barbara J. Strong Charles H. McDaniel Ryan K. Davis Archives show: Cocchiarella – “Stay away”; “bad reports”; “scary” Tirmizi – OK reviews in 2018; one review: “terrible reports” Borsada – Positive feedback since 2017 Archives show: Strong – No recent reviews in 2019 or 2018. But anecdotally, will find injury and small PD, but will not hold up well in cross-examination. Charles McDaniel – No comments about McDaniel in 2018-2019 Davis – One OK in 2019; no review specific reviews pre-2019 For internal, I will strike Cocchiarella. For psyche, I will strike McDaniel as the unknown. Before I send out my strike letter, any comments or feedback from recent experience with these physicians will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. STEVEN C. LOUIE | ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN C. LOUIE 8728 Valley Boulevard, Suite 209 | Rosemead, CA 91770 Direct Tel: 626.569.9818 | Direct Fax: 626.604.5226 Email: steven.louie@sbcglobal.net NOTICE: The information in this e-mail is attorney-client privileged, confidential, proprietary and/or sensitive, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for use by the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you, the reader of this e-mail and/or its attachments, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, publishing, modification, storage or copying of this e-mail or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender at steven.louie@sbcglobal.net , and destroy all copies of this message along with any attachments.
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a QME medical evaluator. Key QME-relevant content includes: (1) panel selection context - Keith Gilmetti is asking about experience with Cocchiarella as a QME panel member; (2) Dennis Thomas reports having two QMEs from Cocchiarella, describing her evaluation style as 'by-the-book'; (3) substantive critique of her medical-legal report quality - she initially rated hypertension and diabetes as non-industrial, demonstrating a misunderstanding of California's aggravation/acceleration doctrine; (4) deposition behavior noted - she changed her opinion under questioning but then contradicted herself by telling the DA she had not changed any opinions from her report, raising credibility and consistency concerns; (5) Bruce Gelber's interest in obtaining the deposition transcript further confirms the QME/medical-legal evaluation context. All content is squarely within the QME evaluator role with no PTP/treating physician references.
brucesgelber@gmail.com Date: December 09, 2017 6:01:00 PM Subject: Re: Southern CA Occ. Med Panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bruce Gelber Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dennis, I would to see your depo of Cocchiarella. Does CAAA or Lawnet have a data-bank of doctor depos? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 9, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Dennis K. Thomas (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Dennis K. Thomas Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Keith I have two QME's from Cocchiarella. Both are not horrible. She is "by-the-book" as you might expect because she is an author/editor or something. I took her deposition on hypertension and diabetes, which, in her reports she said was non-industrial. She did not understand aggravation or acceleration as being industrial in CA. She changed her mind during my questioning and testified that my client had industrial aggravation. The the DA asked if she had changed any opinions from her report and she said "no." Good luck. On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, keith gilmetti (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: keith gilmetti Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Panel consists of: Jonathan C. Green; Linda K. Cocchiarella; Herbert Jennings. I would prefer Green, but I expect defendant to strike him. Any one have any recent experience with the others? Keith B. Gilmetti Leviton Diaz & Ginocchio Bakersfield -- DENNIS K. THOMAS Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization THOMAS EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, INC. 16152 BEACH BLVD., SUITE 100 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 T: 714.843.1110 F: 714.843.1120 NOTICE: The above is not to be received or understood as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship exists with this office until you have signed a retainer agreement or engagement letter. If you are serious about pursuing your matter, retain counsel without delay. If you fail to strictly observe the time limitations applicable to your particular situation you are likely to lose your rights to proceed FOREVER. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
AI Analysis:
Message explicitly discusses Cocchiarella in her role as a QME evaluator. Key QME-relevant details include: (1) quality/nature of her QME reports described as 'not horrible' and 'by-the-book'; (2) her medical-legal opinions on industrial causation (hypertension and diabetes rated as non-industrial); (3) her apparent lack of understanding of California aggravation/acceleration doctrine in the context of QME evaluations; (4) her behavior under deposition — she changed her opinion during questioning but then contradicted herself by telling the defense attorney she had not changed any opinions from her report, raising significant credibility and consistency concerns as a medical evaluator. All content is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context with no PTP/treating physician content present.
Keith I have two QME's from Cocchiarella. Both are not horrible. She is "by-the-book" as you might expect because she is an author/editor or something. I took her deposition on hypertension and diabetes, which, in her reports she said was non-industrial. She did not understand aggravation or acceleration as being industrial in CA. She changed her mind during my questioning and testified that my client had industrial aggravation. The the DA asked if she had changed any opinions from her report and she said "no." Good luck.
AI Analysis:
This message is directly and substantively about Dr. Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a QME (Qualified Medical Evaluator). The discussion explicitly references her QME evaluation, her apportionment opinion (10% for asthma), the legal strategy of whether to depose her regarding that apportionment finding, and whether her apportionment is compliant with Escobedo (a workers' comp legal standard for substantial medical evidence). Additionally, the attorney comments on her qualifications as a medical evaluator, noting she was 'quite knowledgeable as a lecturer' and 'co-authored the guides' (AMA Guides), and raises the question of how she performs under deposition scrutiny — all directly relevant to her credibility and quality as a medical-legal evaluator. There is no treating physician (PTP/STP) content present.
"Scott M. Blumen" Date: November 14, 2024 9:57:00 PM Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Scott M. Blumen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Some of the judges at our San Diego board request development of the record to clear their trial calendars or avoid it altogether. Kimberly Pryor stated my reasoning well in her reply. I already made a demand with no apportionment, but the DAs want something to show for their efforts. Dr. Cocchiarella apportioned 10% for asthma, that's not worth fighting over in a C&R. I enjoy deposing doctors. It's fun to watch them try to explain their opinions, especially on apportionment. When there is no basis for the opinion, as is often the case, and just a percentage, their credibility goes out the window, which helps in future cases. However, the savvy ones can and will kill your case when they know the law and the facts and the medicine. I don't know where Dr. Cocchiarella fits in, she was quite knowledgeable as a lecturer, she was not full of herself, and she did co-author the guides. I was hoping someone deposed her and could share their opinions. Scott M. Blumen, Esq., Certified Legal Specialist Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com<http://www.scottblumenlaw.com/> -----Original Message----- From: dgilliam@bentleymore.com Sent: November 14, 2024 5:19:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Scott- Why depose her if her apportionment findings are not substantial medical evidence and not compliant with Escobedo? [cid:image001.png@01D1F959.C5FEC9F0]<http://www.bentleymore.com/> DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x<tel:%28949%29%20870-3800>213 Fax: (949) 732-6291<tel:%28949%29%20870-3800> Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com<mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com> 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Scott M. Blumen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 3:13 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL][lawnet] QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose List: lawnet Sent By: Scott M. Blumen<mailto:scott@scottblumenlaw.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:scott@scottblumenlaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20QME%20Linda%20Cocchiarella-To%20Depose%20or%20Not%20to%20Depose> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20QME%20Linda%20Cocchiarella-To%20Depose%20or%20Not%20to%20Depose> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> Hello, Got a PQME report from her involving a nurse with accepted COVID claim. Respiratory issues, but RTW no restrictions. Dr. Cocchiarella gave pretty fair ratings asthma and hypertension but apportioned 40% hypertension to pre-existing with zero explanation. At our board, we would need to develop the record before it would ever get to trial. Given she wrote the Guides, I expected a more thorough analysis, or frankly, any analysis, on this issue. Which begs the question: How does she handle cross examination, if anyone has gone down that road before. All thoughts are welcome! TYIA. SCOTT Scott M. Blumen, Esq., Certified Legal Specialist Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com<http://www.scottblumenlaw.com/>
AI Analysis:
The message directly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel evaluation. Key indicators: (1) She appears on an internal medicine QME panel being evaluated for selection/strike by applicant attorneys; (2) Attorney Shaun Cunningham explicitly comments on her track record as a medical evaluator, stating she has been 'bad news on every case' with only one instance of helping an applicant; (3) The discussion involves panel recommendation strategy (who to keep vs. strike), which is core QME/AME evaluator context; (4) The reference to a 'report' where she 'went out of her way to help an applicant' refers to a medical-legal evaluation report, not a treatment PR-2. This is entirely within the QME/AME evaluator role context with no treating physician (PTP/STP) content present.
Mrworkcomp Date: January 29, 2018 4:06:00 PM Subject: Re: internal medicine panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Shaun Cunningham Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I don't know the other two but I really dislike cochiarella. I have seen one report where she went out of her way to help an applicant, but a broken clock is right twice a day. Other than that she has been bad news on every case. Shaun Cunningham, Esq. Law Offices of Shaun Cunningham (949) 391-3725 www.MrWorkComp.Com On Jan 29, 2018, at 2:01 PM, Daniel Chin (scaaa listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: scaaa Sent By: Daniel Chin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi All and pardon the interruption: I just received a panel in internal medicine and it consists of Adam Karns, Cranford Scott, and Linda Cocchiarella. Per archives, looks like Scott is the keeper but will probably be struck by DA. Any thoughts on Karns or Chocchiarella is much appreciated. Thanks! Daniel Chin, Esq. Chin Law Group, APC 941 S. Vermont Avenue, #101 PMB 550 Los Angeles, CA 90006 Phone: (213) 568-3872 Fax: (213) 947-1366 www.ChinLawGroup.com CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, or distribution or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this communication and destroy all copies.
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a QME medical evaluator. Key relevant content includes: (1) panel recommendation/strike discussion — Keith Gilmetti is asking for experience with Cocchiarella as a QME panel member; (2) QME report quality — Dennis Thomas describes having two QMEs from Cocchiarella, characterizing her as 'by-the-book'; (3) medical-legal report quality and objectivity — Thomas details that her QME reports found hypertension and diabetes non-industrial, and that she did not understand CA aggravation/acceleration doctrine; (4) deposition of evaluator — she changed her opinion under questioning but then contradicted herself by telling the DA she had not changed any opinions, raising credibility/reliability concerns as an evaluator. All substantive content pertains exclusively to her role as a QME medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
Christel Schoenfelder Date: December 09, 2017 6:15:00 PM Subject: Re: Southern CA Occ. Med Panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Christel A. Schoenfelder Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings CAAA’s Tech Ed Committee has a depo & brief bank on its agenda. We’ve been working on the format & redaction issues. Christel Sent from my iPhone On Dec 9, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Bruce Gelber (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Bruce Gelber Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dennis, I would to see your depo of Cocchiarella. Does CAAA or Lawnet have a data-bank of doctor depos? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 9, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Dennis K. Thomas (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Dennis K. Thomas Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Keith I have two QME's from Cocchiarella. Both are not horrible. She is "by-the-book" as you might expect because she is an author/editor or something. I took her deposition on hypertension and diabetes, which, in her reports she said was non-industrial. She did not understand aggravation or acceleration as being industrial in CA. She changed her mind during my questioning and testified that my client had industrial aggravation. The the DA asked if she had changed any opinions from her report and she said "no." Good luck. On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, keith gilmetti (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: keith gilmetti Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Panel consists of: Jonathan C. Green; Linda K. Cocchiarella; Herbert Jennings. I would prefer Green, but I expect defendant to strike him. Any one have any recent experience with the others? Keith B. Gilmetti Leviton Diaz & Ginocchio Bakersfield -- DENNIS K. THOMAS Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization THOMAS EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, INC. 16152 BEACH BLVD., SUITE 100 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 T: 714.843.1110 F: 714.843.1120 NOTICE: The above is not to be received or understood as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship exists with this office until you have signed a retainer agreement or engagement letter. If you are serious about pursuing your matter, retain counsel without delay. If you fail to strictly observe the time limitations applicable to your particular situation you are likely to lose your rights to proceed FOREVER. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
AI Analysis:
This message is directly relevant to Linda Cocchiarella as a QME/AME medical evaluator. The context is explicitly a QME panel selection discussion (SoCal QME Panel) where attorneys are asking who to strike from a panel. Christel Schoenfelder reports receiving an 'unfavorable report' from Dr. Cocchiarella on a heart attack/stress case involving racial harassment and work overload claims — this refers to a medical-legal evaluation report, not a treatment report. The original message from Nikki Jacobson lists Dr. Cocchiarella as one of three QMEs on a panel for a Death Claim in Internal Medicine/Cardiovascular Disease, and is soliciting input on who to strike. This constitutes direct evidence of Dr. Cocchiarella's track record as a QME evaluator, her report outcomes in disputed cases, and panel strike recommendations — all core QME/AME evaluator criteria.
Christel Schoenfelder Date: October 01, 2014 11:15:00 AM Subject: Re: SoCal QME Panel -2nd Attempt Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Christel A. Schoenfelder Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Got an unfavorable report from Dr. Cocchiarella on a heart attack case where applicant was claiming stress from racial harassment & work overload. Don't know the others. Christel Sent from my iPhone On Oct 1, 2014, at 8:53 AM, "Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson (lawnet listserver)" < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Who to Strike?? Death Claim Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease Linda Cocchiarella Soheila Benrazavi Amrit Singh Thanks in advance for any input. :-) Nikki Jacobson Los Angeles, CA -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [lawnet] SoCal QME Panel From: "Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson (lawnet listserver)" Date: Sep 29, 2014 4:13 PM To: "Statewide List Service" CC: List: lawnet Sent By: Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Who to Strike?? Death Claim Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease Linda Cocchiarella Soheila Benrazavi Amrit Singh Thanks in advance for any input. :-) Best, Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Attorney at Law / Professor of Law email@nikkijacobson.com Immigration & Workers' Compensation Lawyers 510 West 6th St. Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90014 (310) 277-2266 (888) 207-9600 (310) 277-3366 FAX _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message is directly relevant to linda cocchiarella as a medical evaluator. The context is explicitly about panel strikes ('Who to strike?'), which is a QME/AME panel selection decision. The author references Cocchiarella's evaluative reputation as 'conservative' and notes her authorship of the 5th Edition AMA Guides — a highly relevant credential in the QME/AME context as it speaks to her rating philosophy and approach to disability assessments. The comparison with another evaluator (Munday) in the context of who to strike from a panel further confirms this is squarely about her role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
"Matthew Verduzco" Date: February 26, 2024 1:32:00 PM Subject: Who to strike? So Cal: Linda Cocchiarella MD or Stephen Munday MD? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Matthew Verduzco Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I know Cocchiarella is conservative and she wrote the 5th Ed., but is Munday worse? Not much recently in the archives on him.... Thanks
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a medical evaluator panel (Internal Medicine Panel), which is a QME/AME panel selection context. The sender mentions they are 'leaning toward striking Cocchiarella' based on her reputation not being great — this is a direct panel strike consideration, which falls squarely within the QME/AME evaluator role criteria. There is no mention of her as a treating physician, PR-2 reports, or treatment-related activities.
Anthony Harris Date: July 26, 2021 7:09:00 PM Subject: Internal Medicine Panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Anthony Harris Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, We have the following: Behnam Moein Jahromi, MD Suvesh Chandiok, MD and Linda Cocchiarella, MD We are leaning toward striking Cocchiarella as her reputation isn't great, but wanted to know if anyone has had results from either of the other two. Thank you Tony
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Dr. Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a QME (Qualified Medical Evaluator), specifically referencing 8 CCR 40 regulations governing QME panel evaluators. The discussion centers on whether Dr. Cocchiarella, as a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator), properly advised an injured worker of their rights during the evaluation process, including grounds for discontinuing the evaluation (abusive/hostile/biased behavior). This directly pertains to her conduct and compliance obligations as a medical evaluator, which is squarely within the QME/AME evaluation context. The subject line 'Grounds for PQME Replacement' further confirms this is about her role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: May 06, 2019 3:07:00 PM Subject: Re: Grounds for PQME Replacement Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings See 8 CCR 40 (a) An evaluator selected from a QME panel shall advise an injured worker prior to or at the time of the actual evaluation of the following: (1) That he or she is entitled to ask the evaluator and the evaluator shall promptly answer questions about any matter concerning the evaluation process in which the QME and the injured worker are involved; (2) That subject to section 41(g), the injured worker may discontinue the evaluation based on good cause. Good cause includes: (A) discriminatory conduct by the evaluator towards the worker based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual preference, (B) abusive, hostile or rude behavior including behavior that clearly demonstrates a bias against injured workers, and (C) instances where the evaluator requests the worker to submit to an unnecessary exam or procedure. (b) When required as a condition of probation by the Administrative Director or his/her licensing authority, the QME shall disclose his/her probationary status. The QME shall be entitled to explain any circumstances surrounding the probation. If at that time, the injured worker declines to proceed with the evaluation, such termination shall be considered by the Administrative Director to have occurred for good cause. (c) If the injured worker declines to ask any questions relating to the evaluation procedure as set forth in section 40(a), and does not otherwise object on the grounds of good cause to the exam proceedings under section 41(a) during the exam itself, the injured worker shall have no right to object to the QME comprehensive medical-legal evaluation based on a violation of this section. If Dr. Linda Cocchiarella did not advise your client in the first place that the injured worker may discontinue the evaluation for abusive, hostile or rude behavior, I don't know what the remedy is. Dr. Linda Cocchiarella DID advise your client at the first exam that the injured worker may discontinue the evaluation for abusive, hostile or rude behavior, and your client stayed, then he made his choice. Per the Reg, if your client gets up and walks out of re-exam for abusive, hostile or rude behavior, then the issue of a new panel goes to WCJ to determine if the PQME's behavior was, in fact, abusive, hostile or rude. This is where strategy comes in. If you tell your client to records the re-exam, Dr. Linda Cocchiarella will be on her best behaviour. If your client wants to make sure he does not have to see Dr. Linda Cocchiarella for a while, he goes to exam, waits until she is rude and abusive, then he gets up and walks out. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Jeffrey Linnetz, lawnet listserver" <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 10:54:43 AM Subject: [lawnet] Grounds for PQME Replacement List: lawnet Sent By: Ricardo Perez Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi all, I have an applicant who adamantly refuses to go back to QME Dr. Linda Cocchiarella. He says that she was extremely rude to him, that she was pulling and stretching his limbs, and that wouldn't stop even after he told her to stop because she was hurting him. As it turns out, she gave a very unfavorable report, so there's no way DA is going to agree to an AME or panel replacement. Is this grounds to get a replacement if the Applicant feels he was being mistreated? Thanks, Ricardo AgustÃn Pérez
AI Analysis:
This message directly discusses Dr. Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a QME (Qualified Medical Evaluator). The content covers: (1) conduct during a QME examination — specifically allegations of rough physical examination techniques that continued after the examinee requested she stop, which speaks to examination conduct and fairness; (2) the quality/outcome of her medical-legal report, described as 'very unfavorable' to the applicant; and (3) a legal question about grounds for QME panel replacement based on alleged examiner misconduct. All of these elements are squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context and are relevant to assessing her as a medical evaluator.
Ricardo Perez Date: May 06, 2019 12:55:00 PM Subject: Grounds for PQME Replacement Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Ricardo Perez Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi all, I have an applicant who adamantly refuses to go back to QME Dr. Linda Cocchiarella. He says that she was extremely rude to him, that she was pulling and stretching his limbs, and that wouldn't stop even after he told her to stop because she was hurting him. As it turns out, she gave a very unfavorable report, so there's no way DA is going to agree to an AME or panel replacement. Is this grounds to get a replacement if the Applicant feels he was being mistreated? Thanks, Ricardo AgustÃn Pérez
AI Analysis:
The message is explicitly in the context of a QME panel list discussion. Scott Ford is asking for input on a panel of three QME candidates (Mahomed, Cocchiarella, Laqui) from Anaheim, and states he has 'not had good results from Cochiarella.' Brad Wixen corroborates with 'Stay away from Cocchiarella.' This is a direct panel recommendation/strike context — attorneys are advising against selecting Linda Cocchiarella as a QME from a panel list, which falls squarely within the medical evaluator relevance criteria (panel recommendations, track record in evaluations, evaluation quality).
Brad Wixen Date: May 01, 2018 6:38:00 PM Subject: Re: Internal QME Panel list Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Brad Wixen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Me too. Stay away from Cocchiarella. From: listsender@lawnet.caaa.org Sent: May 1, 2018 7:15 PM To: scaaa@lawnet.caaa.org Reply-to: scaaa@lawnet.caaa.org Subject: [scaaa] Internal QME Panel list List: scaaa Sent By: Scott T. Ford Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello Does anyone have any input of this list of three: Zain Vally Mahomed Anaheim Linda Cochiarella Anaheim Cecil Laqui Anaheim I have not had good results from Cochiarella. Thanks, Scott
AI Analysis:
The message directly discusses Dr. Cocchiarella in her role as a medical evaluator. Philip McGuire references receiving 'a series of reports' from her (medical-legal reports), and describes the report as 'fair and balanced' even given pre-existing conditions similar to the claimed injuries — this speaks directly to her objectivity and fairness as an evaluator. Additionally, the original email from Keith Gilmetti places Dr. Cocchiarella on a QME/AME panel, and McGuire's response is clearly in that panel evaluation context. Both the panel context and the characterization of report quality/fairness are squarely within the QME/AME evaluator relevance criteria.
Philip McGuire Date: December 08, 2017 6:45:00 PM Subject: Re: Southern CA Occ. Med Panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Phil McGuire Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I got a series of reports from Dr. Cocchiarella, the last being about a year ago. Given the medical records showing a lot of pre-existing problems similar to what we were claiming, I thought the report was fair and balanced. -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 12/8/17, keith gilmetti (lawnet listserver) wrote: Subject: [lawnet] Southern CA Occ. Med Panel To: "Statewide List Service" Date: Friday, December 8, 2017, 2:09 PM #yiv4876236150 .yiv4876236150noresizefonts {} #yiv4876236150 @media screen and (max-width:600px)screen and ( _filtered_a ){ #yiv4876236150 #yiv4876236150MCrightSidebar {border:none !important;width:125px !important;} #yiv4876236150 #yiv4876236150MCmainContent {padding-right:0px !important;} } List: lawnet Sent By: keith gilmetti Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Panel consists of: Jonathan C. Green; Linda K. Cocchiarella; Herbert Jennings. I would prefer Green, but I expect defendant to strike him. Any one have any recent experience with the others? Keith B. Gilmetti Leviton Diaz & Ginocchio Bakersfield
AI Analysis:
This message is directly relevant to Linda Cocchiarella as a medical evaluator (QME/AME). The context is explicitly a QME panel selection — Richard English received an ortho panel containing Linda Cocchiarella and is seeking input. Lawrence Stern's response provides substantive evaluator-specific intelligence: (1) she is described as 'conservative' in her ratings/opinions, (2) she can be influenced via deposition by presenting the AMA Guides handbook regarding 'addition vs CVC' (a rating methodology dispute), (3) she is noted to be 'learning SIBTF' (Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund), and (4) she is being used as an internal evaluator for SIBTF cases. All of this information pertains to her track record, tendencies, and quality as a medical-legal evaluator in disputed workers' compensation evaluations — not as a treating physician.
" " Date: October 02, 2017 5:37:00 PM Subject: Re: So Cal ortho panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence I. Stern Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Linda is conservative but if you depose her on the addition vs CVC and show her the handbook and discuss work...she is likely to bend and say add. She is learning SIBTF and I am using her for the internal on SIBTF. (Sent From MerusCase) Lawrence I. Stern, Esquire Mallery & Stern, A Professional Corporation 5120 West Goldleaf Circle Suite 380 Los Angeles, CA 90056 310-473-0777 310-477-1312 (fax) Mallery & Stern, A Professional Corporation 8350 Archibald Avenue Suite 206 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 948-9999 From: "Richard T. English (lawnet listserver)" <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Date: Mon, 10/02/2017 02:54PM Subject: [lawnet] So Cal ortho panel To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> List: lawnet Sent By: Richard T. English Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings rReceived the following ortho panel: Scott Hardy, Linda Cocchiarella and D. Winston Cheshire. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel, asking whether she is 'still a strong strike' — directly referencing her as a QME panel evaluator and the practice of striking her from a QME panel. This is squarely within the medical evaluator (QME/AME) context. The author indicates she would be 'a sure strike in most situations,' suggesting a known track record or reputation as a QME evaluator that influences panel strike decisions. No treating physician (PTP/STP) content is present.
"WILLIAM J. KROPACH" Date: August 21, 2017 8:55:00 PM Subject: QME panel Mel don Levy or Linda Cocchiarella Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: WILLIAM J. KROPACH Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I think that Linda would be a sure strike in most situations but nothing in the archives on Meldon Levy. google seem to indicate that he is at least highly qualified also listed as cardiologist. Any information Please. Is Cocchiarella still a strong strike Any Help appreciated, Thanks, William Kropach, Encino
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly references Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a Panel QME selection process. The attorney (Steve Scardino) states he 'struck Linda Cocchiarella' from the QME panel, with the comment 'life is just too short' implying a negative assessment of her as a medical evaluator. This is a direct panel strike decision in a QME context, which falls squarely within the medical evaluator evaluation criteria. The strike and accompanying remark constitute substantive QME evaluator feedback, even if brief.
Steve Scardino Date: December 31, 2015 1:11:00 PM Subject: Panel QME Internal Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Steven Scardino Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Greetings Brothers and Sisters: Looks like I can chose between Vickey Marbry Height or Ifitkar Khan. (I struck Linda Cocchiarella because life is just too short). My recollection is that Vickey Height is not good. I do not remember the other guy. Between these two, who would you pick? Thank you and a very happy new year. Steve Scardino Gordon, Edelstein, et al. Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
The message directly discusses Dr. Cocchiarella in her role as a medical evaluator (QME/AME) in a workers' compensation panel context. Christel Schoenfelder states that Dr. Cocchiarella 'washed out' her client on a heart attack case, which is a substantive assessment of the doctor's evaluation outcome in a disputed medical-legal context. The original query from David Lupoff is explicitly about a QME panel (post-strike selection), asking colleagues which panel doctor to strike — confirming this is a QME/AME evaluation context. The phrase 'washed out my client' indicates Dr. Cocchiarella rendered an unfavorable evaluation for the injured worker, which is directly relevant to her track record and objectivity as a medical evaluator.
Christel Schoenfelder Date: December 19, 2014 4:29:00 PM Subject: Re: Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Christel A. Schoenfelder Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dr. Cocchiarella washed out my client on a heart attack case. I don't know Dr. Khan. Christel Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2014, at 1:51 PM, "David Lupoff (lawnet listserver)" < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: David Lupoff Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello Colleagues, I have a client who suffered a heart attack at work, and now I am reviewing the panel docs. The deft's struck Dr. Hyman, leaving behind Drs Cocchiarella and Khan. Who should I strike? Thank you in advance for your assistance. David Law Offices of David B. Lupoff 15915 Ventura Blvd. Penthouse 4 Encino, CA 91436 P. 818.385.0520 F. 818.986.1657 _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message directly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a medical evaluator (PQME/QME context). Key indicators: (1) The original message explicitly asks about a PQME panel and who to strike, naming Linda Cocchiarella as one of three evaluators. (2) Jim Harvey's reply describes her conduct during a QME/PQME evaluation — specifically that she went out of her way to find non-AOE/COE in a mold exposure case for an unrepresented injured worker, attributing work-related symptoms (throat reactions from mold) to GERD and preexisting rhinitis instead. (3) The context of the IW being upset and leaving before completing testing, and the doctor's apparent retaliatory or biased finding, speaks directly to her objectivity and fairness as a medical evaluator. (4) Dennis Thomas's comment about her having edited the AMA Guides is relevant to her qualifications and credibility as an evaluator. None of this pertains to treating physician activity — it is squarely within QME/AME evaluation conduct and panel strike considerations.
"Jim Harvey" Date: January 08, 2014 2:34:00 PM Subject: Re: PQME Internal - So. Cal. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: James Harvey Search She may be. However, she went out of her way to find non-AOE/COE in a mold case for an unrepresented IW who had reactions in her throat (EOE) I saw last week. The IW upset the doc, by leaving without completing some testing after IW waited hours to be seen and spent hours in the exam room. The mold came from leaky a pipe and drain at work, but Dr. C. blamed GERD and preexisting rhinitis. Jim Harvey Arroyo Grande ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Thomas To: Statewide List Service Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [lawnet] PQME Internal - So. Cal. List: lawnet Sent by: Dennis K. Thomas Search Well Linda better know the AMA Guides pretty well. She "edited" it. On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Maurice Abarr < maurice@abarrlaw.com > wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Maurice L. Abarr Search Keyvan Yousefi, MD, Long Beach Linda Cocchiarella, MD Anaheim Renee Rinaldi-Ballard, MD Bevery Hills Who is the worst? (i.e., who do you recommend to strike?) -- MAURICE L. ABARR - LAWYER, INC. 201 E. Sandpointe Ave., Suite 480 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 543-8416 Tel (714) 641-4809 Fax Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right. -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. _.___.__ -- Dennis Thomas LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS K THOMAS NOTICE: The above is not to be received or understood as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship exists with this office until you have signed a retainer agreement or engagement letter. If you are serious about pursuing your matter, retain counsel without delay. If you fail to strictly observe the time limitations applicable to your particular situation you are likely to lose your rights to proceed FOREVER. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses a QME/AME panel selection context. Linda Cocchiarella appears on an Internal Medicine - Endocrinology, Diabetes panel, and the attorneys are deliberating on which panelists to strike. This is a direct QME panel strike/recommendation discussion, which falls squarely within the medical evaluator context. The conversation is about who to keep or strike from the panel, indicating evaluator quality considerations relevant to QME/AME assessment.
Lester Date: November 16, 2013 10:17:00 AM Subject: Re: So Cal Internal - Bailey, Sherman, Cocchiarella Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search Strike Bailey. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills Sent from my iPhone On Nov 15, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Alan Tajer < tajerlaw@gmail.com > wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Alan Tajer Search Received an Internal Medicine - Endocrinology, Diabetes panel with the following: Joselyn Bailey James Sherman Linda Cocchiarella I was going to keep Sherman, but not sure who to strike between the other two. Appreciate any help. -Tajer Los Angeles _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is from a workers' compensation attorney (Scott Ford of Ford & Wallach) responding to a thread explicitly about which doctor to STRIKE from a QME panel ('Who to strike?'). This is unambiguously a QME/AME evaluator context. The attorney describes Linda Cocchiarella as 'very conservative' — a term used in the medical-legal/evaluator context to indicate she rates low or is defense-leaning in disability assessments. The mention of having 'met with her a few times' and her being 'a work in progress' in the context of a panel strike discussion further confirms this is about her performance as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician. The subject line and list (lawnet) confirm this is a legal professional discussion about QME panel selection strategy.
"SCOTT FORD" Date: February 27, 2024 9:43:00 AM Subject: Re: Who to strike? So Cal: Linda Cocchiarella MD or Stephen Munday MD? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Scott T. Ford Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I agree that Linda Cocchiarella is very conservative. However, I have met with her a few times and she wants to try to be better. I think she is a work in progress. Scott T Ford Ford & Wallach Attorneys At Law A Professional Corporation 3619 Motor Avenue Los Angeles, CA. 90034 Phone: 213-380-3140 Fax: 213-480-0249 Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos and short replies.
AI Analysis:
The message discusses Linda Cocchiarella (spelled 'Cocciarella') explicitly in the context of a QME/AME panel selection decision ('SoCal Internal Panel - Ghomri or Cocciarella?'). Multiple attorneys on a legal listserv (CAAA lawnet) are exchanging opinions about her as a medical evaluator: Bruce Gelber references 'bad reports' about her evaluations and a specific case where she connected an IW's heart attack to amphetamines used to treat industrial mold exposure — a medical-legal causation finding typical of QME/AME work. Bonnie Binder Wilson references her name being on 'the Guides' (likely the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, which is the rating bible for QME/AME evaluations), framing that as a concern. Both comments reflect attorney assessments of her track record and reliability as a medical evaluator in disputed workers' comp cases, which is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context. No treating physician (PTP/STP) content is present.
"Bonnie Binder Wilson" Date: April 04, 2019 7:00:00 PM Subject: RE: SoCal Internal Panel - Ghomri or Cocciarella? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bonnie Binder-Wilson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Cocciarella's name is on the Guides - Isn't that more Scary ________________________________________________________ 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: Bruce Gelber (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 6:17 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] SoCal Internal Panel - Ghomri or Cocciarella? List: lawnet Sent By: Bruce Gelber Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I had nothing but bad reports from Cocciarella ....until recently: She connected IW's heart attack to amphetamines taken to treat industrial mold exposures. Hard to believe. Still, she is scary. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Jennifer Ryan (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Jennifer Ryan Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Any insight on Yashar Ghomri or Lina Cocchiarella? Thank you, Jennifer Ryan
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a QME/AME panel evaluation. The sender (Wendy Cantrell, an attorney) is asking about panel doctors for a complex workers' comp case, referencing AMA guides, work restrictions, and apportionment — all hallmarks of a medical-legal evaluation context. The statement 'Assume Cocchiarella is a no' indicates a panel strike recommendation or negative evaluator assessment, which is directly relevant to her quality/reputation as a medical evaluator. The mention of the client's demographic ('older African American male if it makes a difference') further suggests concern about evaluator objectivity/fairness in the QME/AME context.
Wendy Cantrell Date: October 05, 2018 3:29:00 PM Subject: Fw: So Cal Internal panel Mark Ngo, Meldon Levy and Linda Cocchiarella Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Wendy L. Cantrell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Second request Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offices of Patrick L. Lightman We moved! 2377 Crenshaw Blvd Suite 360 Torrance, CA 90501 (310) 792-0888 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Wendy L. Cantrell (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018, 1:42:22 PM PDT Subject: [lawnet] So Cal Internal panel Mark Ngo, Meldon Levy and Linda Cocchiarella List: lawnet Sent By: Wendy L. Cantrell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Complex case. Are any of the above decent? I see mixed reviews on Ngo, nothing on Meldon Levy. Assume Cocchiarella is a no. Need to know 2003 work restrictions AND AMA guides and how to apportion. Client is older African American male if it makes a difference. Thank you for all responses. Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offices of Patrick L. Lightman We moved! 2377 Crenshaw Blvd Suite 360 Torrance, CA 90501 (310) 792-0888
AI Analysis:
The message directly discusses Dr. Cocchiarella in her role as a medical evaluator (QME/AME context). Key indicators: (1) She is referenced in the context of a panel selection discussion ('reviewing the panel docs', defense struck Dr. Hyman leaving Dr. Cocchiarella), confirming QME panel context. (2) Christel Schoenfelder reports that 'Dr. Cocchiarella washed out my client on a heart attack case,' which refers to a medical-legal evaluation outcome (non-industrial finding) — not treatment. (3) The follow-up clarifies the 'wipeout' was due to a finding of 'completely non-industrial,' which is a disability/causation determination made in a QME/AME evaluation capacity. This is substantive evaluator track record information relevant to assessing Dr. Cocchiarella's objectivity and fairness as a medical evaluator, particularly in heart attack/cardiovascular industrial causation cases.
Christel Schoenfelder Date: December 23, 2014 2:00:00 PM Subject: RE: Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Christel A. Schoenfelder Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Completely non-industrial despite my client enduring racial epithets & discrimination and told to do significantly extra work to make up for lazy employees favored by management. Had her depo set but applicant accepted defense offer. Christel A. Schoenfelder Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization Rose, Klein & Marias 3536 Concours, Ste. 210 Ontario, CA 91764 909-944-1711 909-944-1722 (fax) C.Schoenfelder@RKMlaw.net From: William S. Morris (lawnet listserver) [mailto: listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 10:47 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan? List: lawnet Sent By: William S. Morris Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings This sounds like something to share. Was the wipeout because found non-industrial? Was the wipeout because disability insignificant? Please give particulars. wsmorris Turlock, Ca From: Christel A. Schoenfelder (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan? List: lawnet Sent By: Christel A. Schoenfelder Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dr. Cocchiarella washed out my client on a heart attack case. I don't know Dr. Khan. Christel Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2014, at 1:51 PM, "David Lupoff (lawnet listserver)" < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: David Lupoff Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello Colleagues, I have a client who suffered a heart attack at work, and now I am reviewing the panel docs. The deft's struck Dr. Hyman, leaving behind Drs Cocchiarella and Khan. Who should I strike? Thank you in advance for your assistance. David Law Offices of David B. Lupoff 15915 Ventura Blvd. Penthouse 4 Encino, CA 91436 P. 818.385.0520 F. 818.986.1657 _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is explicitly about a QME panel in Southern California ('Internal QME SO CAL'). Linda Cocchiarella is listed as one of three doctors on a QME panel, and the sender is asking for advice on who to strike from the panel. This is a direct reference to Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a QME/medical evaluator. Panel strikes are a core QME process action, making this clearly relevant to evaluating her as a medical evaluator. The context (law firm, workers' comp listserv 'lawnet') confirms this is a medical-legal/QME context, not a treating physician context.
"Kimberley J. Pryor" Date: December 18, 2013 1:27:00 PM Subject: Internal QME SO CAL Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Kimberley J. Pryor Search Greetings doers of the good! Who should I strike? David Medway Linda Cocchiarella The 3rd doctor is Ira Monosson Thanks Kimberley J. Pryor Rowen, Gurvey & Win Van Nuys
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses a QME panel in Internal Medicine - Endocrinology, Diabetes that includes Linda Cocchiarella. The author is seeking advice on whether to strike or keep her as a panel evaluator, which is a direct QME panel selection/strike decision. This is squarely within the medical evaluator context — panel recommendations and strike decisions are core QME/AME evaluator activities. While the message lacks detailed qualitative feedback about her evaluation quality or report writing, the panel strike context alone makes it relevant to her role as a medical evaluator.
Alan Tajer Date: November 15, 2013 9:01:00 PM Subject: So Cal Internal - Bailey, Sherman, Cocchiarella Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Alan Tajer Search Received an Internal Medicine - Endocrinology, Diabetes panel with the following: Joselyn Bailey James Sherman Linda Cocchiarella I was going to keep Sherman, but not sure who to strike between the other two. Appreciate any help. -Tajer Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
This message is directly relevant to Linda Cocchiarella as a medical evaluator in a QME/AME context. The discussion centers on a panel list (a QME panel) and whether to strike her or another doctor. Brett Borah (an attorney representing injured workers, given the CAAA lawnet list context) recommends giving Cocchiarella 'a try' based on a personal interaction at a convention, expressing that she would be 'O.K. for injured workers.' This is a panel strike recommendation discussion — a core QME/AME evaluator context. Her identity as editor of the AMA Guides (used for disability ratings) is also noted, which is directly relevant to her qualifications as a medical evaluator. There is no treating physician (PTP/STP) content here.
maddogbab@aol.com Date: July 01, 2013 12:52:00 PM Subject: Re: Who would you stike? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Brett A. Borah Search Bruce: I'd be inclined to give Cocchiarella a try. I spent a lot of time talking with her at the January convention and came away feeling like she'd be O.K. for injured workers. You know the problems with getting final reports out of Bronshvag. Mad Dog -----Original Message----- From: Bruce <bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Mon, Jul 1, 2013 10:44 am Subject: [lawnet] Who would you stike? List: lawnet Sent by: J. Bruce Sutherland Search We have an internal Panel list of: Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD (Editor of the AMA Guides) Scott T. Anderson, MD Michael M. Bronshvag, MD. Thanks, J. Bruce Sutherland Law Offices of J. Bruce Sutherland 123 Jewell Street First Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 421-0240 (831) 421-0241-fax bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a QME (Qualified Medical Evaluator) on an internal QME panel list. The original message from Cozzaglio identifies her as one of three 'internal QME' candidates on a panel, and Rondeau responds with an assessment of her track record as a QME evaluator — specifically noting she has no established 'track record' yet as a QME, but that she is 'not out to get injured workers.' This is directly relevant QME evaluator context: panel selection discussion, evaluator bias/objectivity assessment, and track record commentary in a disputed medical-legal evaluation setting.
"Charles R. Rondeau" Date: May 23, 2013 8:13:00 AM Subject: Re: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Charles R. Rondeau Search Alex, with all due respect to Mr. Stein, I totally disagree. The real "wash out", the guaranteed "wash out" doctor on that QME list is Gary Stewart. I have had favorable results with Dr. Majcher for years, including recently. Did I always get everything with him? Of course not. But I have had nothing but bad results with Dr. Stewart for the same number of years .. And recently. Dr. Stewart has totally sold out to the carriers and employers and even has gone out of his way to screw over (or at least try to) injured police officers and firefighters on presumptions cases with ridiculous and intellectually dishonest BS. Dr. Cocchiarella has no "track record" yet, so if she ends up being the QME who knows what you'll end up getting. Nevertheless, I can say that she is not "out to get" injured workers like Gary Stewart is. Chuck P.S., if you really want to know what I think about Dr. Stewart, give me a call. Chuck Rondeau -----Original Message----- From: neilstein@roadrunner.com Sent: May 22, 2013 5:56:18 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Alexander:stay clear of Macher.He has been completely turned around,and is a wash out doctor. -- Neil M.Stein Attorney At Law 16133 Ventura Blvd,#1200 Encino,California,91436 8189908232 neilstein@roadrunner.com ---- "Alexander G. Cozzaglio" wrote: > CAAALeauges, > > > > I have Stanly Matcher, Linda Cocchiarella and Gary Stewart. I need as much > of the internal gastro issue to be found to be industrial as possible since > the psyche AME left the apportionment question 20% of psyche due to internal > from work injury meds if internal qme finds industrial. So if internal qme > finds internal gastro issues to be non industrial, I have a problem. > > > > Would appreciate any insight you may have on these internal QME's > > > > by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO > > 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 > > Van Nuys, CA 91401 > > agc@cozzagliolaw.com > > 818-257-8026 > > 818-902-9978 fx > > > > Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law > > CAAA Regular Member > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential > and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be > legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that > any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the > intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received > this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > > > > > ---- end of message ----
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly asks which of three listed doctors — including Linda Cocchiarella, MD of Anaheim — should be struck from a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) panel. This is a direct panel strike recommendation inquiry, which falls squarely within the QME/AME medical evaluator context. The subject line references 'PQME Internal,' confirming the evaluator role. There is no treating physician or PR-2/treatment context present.
Keyvan Yousefi, MD, Long Beach Linda Cocchiarella, MD Anaheim Renee Rinaldi-Ballard, MD Bevery Hills Who is the worst? (i.e., who do you recommend to strike?) -- MAURICE L. ABARR - LAWYER, INC. 201 E. Sandpointe Ave., Suite 480 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 543-8416 Tel (714) 641-4809 Fax Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right. -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
AI Analysis:
The message discusses Linda Cocchiarella (spelled 'Cocciarella') in the context of a panel selection decision (SoCal Internal Panel), which is a QME/AME evaluator context. Bruce Gelber references 'bad reports' about her as an evaluator, and the specific example given — connecting an IW's (Injured Worker's) heart attack to amphetamines taken to treat industrial mold exposures — describes a medical-legal causation finding in an evaluation, not a treating physician action. The framing ('she is scary') reflects her track record as a medical evaluator. The original query from Jennifer Ryan also asks for 'insight' on Cocchiarella in the context of panel selection, confirming the QME/AME evaluator context.
Bruce Gelber Date: April 02, 2019 8:18:00 PM Subject: Re: SoCal Internal Panel - Ghomri or Cocciarella? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bruce Gelber Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I had nothing but bad reports from Cocciarella ....until recently: She connected IW's heart attack to amphetamines taken to treat industrial mold exposures. Hard to believe. Still, she is scary. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Jennifer Ryan (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Jennifer Ryan Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Any insight on Yashar Ghomri or Lina Cocchiarella? Thank you, Jennifer Ryan
AI Analysis:
The message is explicitly titled 'QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose,' confirming the discussion is about Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator). The thread discusses whether to depose her on the issue of apportionment — a core medical-legal evaluation topic directly tied to her QME report and disability ratings. The legal discussion around apportionment burden of proof (sections 4663/4664, Kopping case) is directly relevant to challenging or defending her QME findings. While the message itself focuses more on procedural/legal strategy (deposition, removal petition) rather than directly critiquing her evaluation quality, it is substantively about her role and output as a QME medical evaluator in a disputed workers' compensation matter.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: November 15, 2024 11:14:00 AM Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Scott, If the Trial Judge orders you or DA to take the PQME's depo on the issue of apportionment, you can Petition for Removal. We had a Judge in SAC who continuously ruled that the Applicant had the burden to prove what percentage of the PD was the direct result of the industrial injury and that Defendant's burden to prove apportionment to other factors did not kick in until Applicant proved what percentage of the PD was the direct result of the industrial injury. I n Arias v Williams Roofing Company , issued 1/11/24, Commissioner Joe Capurro said, "To the extent the WCJ cites section 4664(a) to suggest that applicant has the burden of disproving apportionment, we disagree. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of section 4664 (and section 4663) pertain to the issue of apportionment, with no mention that applicant has the burden of proof. Rather, it is well-settled that the burden of proving apportionment is with the defense. (Kopping v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1114 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].)." How to explain prejudice and irreparable harm if the Judge sees that the Defendant has to have another opportunity to prove apportionment? Bias, perhaps? As for that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy after the issuance of a final order, decision or award," Applicant can't un-ring the bell after the depo on apportionment is accomplished. 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, November 14, 2024 7:57:11 PM Subject: Re:[lawnet] QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose List: lawnet Sent By: Scott M. Blumen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Some of the judges at our San Diego board request development of the record to clear their trial calendars or avoid it altogether. Kimberly Pryor stated my reasoning well in her reply. I already made a demand with no apportionment, but the DAs want something to show for their efforts. Dr. Cocchiarella apportioned 10% for asthma, that's not worth fighting over in a C&R. I enjoy deposing doctors. It's fun to watch them try to explain their opinions, especially on apportionment. When there is no basis for the opinion, as is often the case, and just a percentage, their credibility goes out the window, which helps in future cases. However, the savvy ones can and will kill your case when they know the law and the facts and the medicine. I don't know where Dr. Cocchiarella fits in, she was quite knowledgeable as a lecturer, she was not full of herself, and she did co-author the guides. I was hoping someone deposed her and could share their opinions. Scott M. Blumen, Esq., Certified Legal Specialist Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com<http://www.scottblumenlaw.com/> -----Original Message----- From: dgilliam@bentleymore.com Sent: November 14, 2024 5:19:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Scott- Why depose her if her apportionment findings are not substantial medical evidence and not compliant with Escobedo? [cid:image001.png@01D1F959.C5FEC9F0]<http://www.bentleymore.com/> DANE P. GILLIAM Trial Attorney Office: (949) 870-3800 x<tel:%28949%29%20870-3800>213 Fax: (949) 732-6291<tel:%28949%29%20870-3800> Email: dgilliam@bentleymore.com<mailto:dgilliam@bentleymore.com> 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and, in some cases information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Scott M. Blumen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 3:13 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL][lawnet] QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose List: lawnet Sent By: Scott M. Blumen<mailto:scott@scottblumenlaw.com> Reply To Sender<mailto:scott@scottblumenlaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20QME%20Linda%20Cocchiarella-To%20Depose%20or%20Not%20to%20Depose> Reply To List<mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20QME%20Linda%20Cocchiarella-To%20Depose%20or%20Not%20to%20Depose> Search<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search> Settings<http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings> Hello, Got a PQME report from her involving a nurse with accepted COVID claim. Respiratory issues, but RTW no restrictions. Dr. Cocchiarella gave pretty fair ratings asthma and hypertension but apportioned 40% hypertension to pre-existing with zero explanation. At our board, we would need to develop the record before it would ever get to trial. Given she wrote the Guides, I expected a more thorough analysis, or frankly, any analysis, on this issue. Which begs the question: How does she handle cross examination, if anyone has gone down that road before. All thoughts are welcome! TYIA. SCOTT Scott M. Blumen, Esq., Certified Legal Specialist Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com<http://www.scottblumenlaw.com/>
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a QME/AME panel selection. The sender references a 'So Cal Internal panel' listing Cocchiarella alongside other evaluators, and states 'Assume Cocchiarella is a no' — indicating a negative assessment of her as a medical evaluator worth striking from the panel. The context involves complex medical-legal issues (2003 work restrictions, AMA guides, apportionment), which are squarely within QME/AME evaluation territory. This is clearly a panel strike/recommendation discussion, not a treating physician context.
Wendy Cantrell Date: October 04, 2018 3:42:00 PM Subject: So Cal Internal panel Mark Ngo, Meldon Levy and Linda Cocchiarella Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Wendy L. Cantrell Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Complex case. Are any of the above decent? I see mixed reviews on Ngo, nothing on Meldon Levy. Assume Cocchiarella is a no. Need to know 2003 work restrictions AND AMA guides and how to apportion. Client is older African American male if it makes a difference. Thank you for all responses. Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offices of Patrick L. Lightman We moved! 2377 Crenshaw Blvd Suite 360 Torrance, CA 90501 (310) 792-0888
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly references Linda Cocchiarella as a member of an internal medicine QME panel. The attorney is soliciting opinions on her as a medical evaluator in the context of a panel selection/strike decision, which is a core QME/AME evaluation activity. While the message does not contain substantive information about her evaluation quality or track record, it does confirm her role as a QME panel member and implicitly invites feedback about her as a medical evaluator. This is directly relevant to the QME/AME evaluator context.
Hi All and pardon the interruption: I just received a panel in internal medicine and it consists of Adam Karns, Cranford Scott, and Linda Cocchiarella. Per archives, looks like Scott is the keeper but will probably be struck by DA. Any thoughts on Karns or Chocchiarella is much appreciated. Thanks! Daniel Chin, Esq. Chin Law Group, APC 941 S. Vermont Avenue, #101 PMB 550 Los Angeles, CA 90006 Phone: (213) 568-3872 Fax: (213) 947-1366 www.ChinLawGroup.com CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, or distribution or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this communication and destroy all copies.
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly references Linda Cocchiarella as part of an orthopedic QME panel received by an attorney (Richard English) on the lawnet legal listserv. The context is clearly a panel selection scenario where the attorney is soliciting input on the panel members, which is a standard QME panel strike/selection process. This directly relates to her role as a medical evaluator (QME). While the message contains no substantive detail about her evaluation quality or track record, it is relevant because it confirms her active status as a QME panelist and the attorney is seeking evaluator-specific feedback about her and the other panel members.
"Richard English" Date: October 02, 2017 4:55:00 PM Subject: So Cal ortho panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Richard T. English Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings rReceived the following ortho panel: Scott Hardy, Linda Cocchiarella and D. Winston Cheshire. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks
AI Analysis:
The message is explicitly about selecting a QME panel doctor for a workers' compensation heart attack case. David Lupoff is asking colleagues which doctor to strike from the QME panel — Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan. Hollie Rutkowski responds recommending to keep Cocchiarella, implying she has a favorable opinion of Cocchiarella as a medical evaluator. This is directly in the QME/AME context: panel selection, panel strikes, and evaluator recommendations. There is no treatment/PTP context here.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: December 19, 2014 3:56:00 PM Subject: RE: Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I don't know Khan, but I think you should keep Cocchiarella. M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento , CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: David Lupoff (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:52 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [lawnet] Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan? List: lawnet Sent By: David Lupoff Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello Colleagues, I have a client who suffered a heart attack at work, and now I am reviewing the panel docs. The deft's struck Dr. Hyman, leaving behind Drs Cocchiarella and Khan. Who should I strike? Thank you in advance for your assistance. David Law Offices of David B. Lupoff 15915 Ventura Blvd. Penthouse 4 Encino, CA 91436 P. 818.385.0520 F. 818.986.1657 _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Dr. Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel selection for a workers' compensation case involving a heart attack at work. The attorney is asking colleagues whether to strike Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Khan from the panel, which is a direct reference to her role as a QME/AME medical evaluator. The panel strike decision implies the attorney is seeking information about her track record, objectivity, and quality as a medical evaluator in disputed evaluations. This is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context, not a treating physician context.
lupofflaw@aol.com Date: December 19, 2014 3:52:00 PM Subject: Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: David Lupoff Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello Colleagues, I have a client who suffered a heart attack at work, and now I am reviewing the panel docs. The deft's struck Dr. Hyman, leaving behind Drs Cocchiarella and Khan. Who should I strike? Thank you in advance for your assistance. David Law Offices of David B. Lupoff 15915 Ventura Blvd. Penthouse 4 Encino, CA 91436 P. 818.385.0520 F. 818.986.1657
AI Analysis:
Linda Cocchiarella is explicitly named as one of three doctors on a QME panel in a death claim (Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease). The message is a panel strike discussion among attorneys on a legal listserv (lawnet/CAAA), which is a classic QME panel selection context. The original poster is soliciting input on who to strike from the panel, and the responding attorney provides feedback on another panelist. While no specific qualitative feedback about Cocchiarella's evaluation quality is provided, her appearance on a QME panel and being subject to a strike decision is directly relevant to her role as a medical evaluator (QME/AME). This is not a treating physician (PTP/STP) context.
Emily Mehr Date: October 01, 2014 11:14:00 AM Subject: RE: SoCal QME Panel -2nd Attempt Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Emily Mehr Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I haven't had any luck with Amrit Singh, so I'd be inclined to strike - but I have never used Soheila Benrazavi. Emily E. Mehr Attorney at Law MEHR & ASSOCIATES 17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Irvine, Ca 92614 Direct Telephone: (949) 777-9445 Direct Facsimile: (949) 777-9899 Office Telephone: (949) 777-9444 ext. 211 Office Facsimile: (949) 777-9440 This message originates from Mehr & Associates. This e-mail message and all attachments may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. This message may not be copied or distributed without this disclaimer. This email communication does not constitute an attorney client relationship unless a retainer has been signed by both attorney and client. If you received this message in error, please notify us via reply to this email. From: Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson (lawnet listserver) [mailto: listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 8:54 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] SoCal QME Panel -2nd Attempt List: lawnet Sent By: Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Who to Strike?? Death Claim Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease Linda Cocchiarella Soheila Benrazavi Amrit Singh Thanks in advance for any input. :-) Nikki Jacobson Los Angeles, CA -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [lawnet] SoCal QME Panel From: "Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson (lawnet listserver)" Date: Sep 29, 2014 4:13 PM To: "Statewide List Service" CC: List: lawnet Sent By: Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Who to Strike?? Death Claim Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease Linda Cocchiarella Soheila Benrazavi Amrit Singh Thanks in advance for any input. :-) Best, Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Attorney at Law / Professor of Law email@nikkijacobson.com Immigration & Workers' Compensation Lawyers 510 West 6th St. Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90014 (310) 277-2266 (888) 207-9600 (310) 277-3366 FAX _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is from an attorney (Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson) explicitly asking for input on who to strike from a QME panel in a Death Claim / Internal Medicine - Cardiovascular Disease case. Linda Cocchiarella is listed as one of three QME panel members under consideration for a strike. This is directly relevant to her role as a QME/medical evaluator — the attorney is soliciting peer feedback on panel selection decisions, which pertains to her track record and reputation as a QME evaluator. While the message does not contain detailed qualitative commentary about her evaluation quality, it is a panel strike inquiry, which falls squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context.
email@nikkijacobson.com Date: October 01, 2014 10:54:00 AM Subject: Re: SoCal QME Panel -2nd Attempt Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Who to Strike?? Death Claim Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease Linda Cocchiarella Soheila Benrazavi Amrit Singh Thanks in advance for any input. :-) Nikki Jacobson Los Angeles, CA -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [lawnet] SoCal QME Panel From: "Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson (lawnet listserver)" Date: Sep 29, 2014 4:13 PM To: "Statewide List Service" CC: List: lawnet Sent By: Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Who to Strike?? Death Claim Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease Linda Cocchiarella Soheila Benrazavi Amrit Singh Thanks in advance for any input. :-) Best, Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Attorney at Law / Professor of Law email@nikkijacobson.com Immigration & Workers' Compensation Lawyers 510 West 6th St. Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90014 (310) 277-2266 (888) 207-9600 (310) 277-3366 FAX _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is a request for panel strike recommendations on a SoCal QME Panel in a Death Claim (Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease). Linda Cocchiarella is explicitly listed as one of three QME panel doctors being considered for a strike. While the message does not contain detailed evaluative commentary about her quality or track record as a medical evaluator, it is directly and unambiguously about her in her role as a QME panelist. The attorney is soliciting input on who to strike from the panel, which is a core QME/AME panel selection activity. This is relevant to understanding her standing/reputation as a medical evaluator in the workers' compensation community.
"Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson" Date: September 29, 2014 6:13:00 PM Subject: SoCal QME Panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Who to Strike?? Death Claim Internal Medicine -- Cardiovascular Disease Linda Cocchiarella Soheila Benrazavi Amrit Singh Thanks in advance for any input. :-) Best, Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Attorney at Law / Professor of Law email@nikkijacobson.com Immigration & Workers' Compensation Lawyers 510 West 6th St. Suite 326 Los Angeles, CA 90014 (310) 277-2266 (888) 207-9600 (310) 277-3366 FAX
AI Analysis:
The message references Linda Cocchiarella's authorship/editorship of the AMA Guides, which are the foundational reference used by QMEs/AMEs to rate permanent disability and impairment. This is directly relevant to her qualifications and competency as a medical evaluator, as mastery of the AMA Guides is a core requirement for QME/AME work. The comment implies she should be highly knowledgeable about the Guides in the context of a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) internal discussion, suggesting her suitability or credibility as a medical evaluator in Southern California.
Well Linda better know the AMA Guides pretty well. She "edited" it.
AI Analysis:
The message is from an attorney (Maurice Abarr) asking colleagues which of three listed doctors — including Linda Cocchiarella, MD of Anaheim — they recommend striking from a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) panel. The subject line 'PQME Internal - So. Cal.' and the explicit question about who to strike from a panel directly places Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a medical evaluator (QME/AME context). Panel strikes are a core QME/AME evaluation activity, making this message relevant to assessing her as a medical evaluator, even though no detailed substantive evaluation quality information is provided beyond her inclusion as a candidate for striking.
Keyvan Yousefi, MD, Long Beach Linda Cocchiarella, MD Anaheim Renee Rinaldi-Ballard, MD Bevery Hills Who is the worst? (i.e., who do you recommend to strike?) -- MAURICE L. ABARR - LAWYER, INC. 201 E. Sandpointe Ave., Suite 480 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 543-8416 Tel (714) 641-4809 Fax Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right. -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
AI Analysis:
The message contains attorney panel recommendations comparing Cocchiarella against other evaluators (Sherman and Fishman) in a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) context. Lester Friedman states he would 'take [Fishman] over Cocchiarella,' and Philip Cohen asks if Sherman is 'better than Cocchiarella and/or Ira Fishman' — both comments are made in the context of selecting a PQME, indicating Cocchiarella is being discussed and compared as a medical evaluator. While no detailed qualitative reasoning is given for the preference against Cocchiarella, the comparative panel selection context is clearly QME/AME evaluator territory, making this message relevant.
"Greg Santiago " Date: December 23, 2013 4:53:00 PM Subject: Re: PQME James H. Sherman,M.D. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: greg santiago Search Take Sherman over the other two. Greg Santiago, Esq. Drasin, Yee & Santiago 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #440 Los Angeles, CA 90034 310-473-2355 -----Original Message----- From: LJF718@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 22:29:24 To: Subject: Re: [lawnet] PQME James H. Sherman,M.D. List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search <<a href="http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305" target="_blank">http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305> I don't know Fishman but I would take him over Cocchiarella. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills In a message dated 12/23/2013 10:54:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, PMCworkcomp@aol.com writes: List: lawnet Sent by: Philip Cohen Search <<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 > Is he better than Cocchiarella and/or Ira Fishman? Philip M.Cohen, San Diego In a message dated 12/22/2013 7:59:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, ljf718@aol.com writes: List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search <<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 > He is good. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills Sent from my iPhone On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:40 PM, PMCworkcomp@aol.com wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Philip Cohen Search <<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 > Does anyone have any information on James H. Sherman, M.D.? He is on an internal PQME list in SoCal. Philip M.Cohen,San Diego _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly references Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel selection for a workers' compensation heart case. She is listed as a panel QME on one of two panels (alongside Malcolm McHenry and Juan Larach). The attorney is actively soliciting '411' (reputation/track record information) on Cocchiarella specifically to determine whether she would be a favorable QME/AME selection. This is squarely within the medical evaluator context — panel membership, panel selection strategy, and evaluator reputation in disputed industrial injury cases. There is no treating physician (PTP/STP) context present. The message does not itself contain substantive evaluator quality information about Cocchiarella, but it is a direct inquiry about her as a QME panel evaluator, making it relevant to the evaluation focus.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: November 20, 2013 5:36:00 PM Subject: Need Advice - Two Panels, no strikes. 411 on Linda Cocchiarella, Peter Chang-Sing Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Hollie Rutkowski Search Both DA and I requested Panels for a heart case, one Int Med-Cardio and one Int Med. We then agreed to Blau. Panels came in April 2013 and we ignored them. Blau was wipe out, not industrial, then retired, Thank God. I offered AME with Levy, the DA has not responded. I believe I can pick any doctor from either Panel. One Panel is Norman Panting, Peter Chang-Sing, Gerald Levine. The other Panel is Linda Cocchiarella, Malcolm McHenry, Juan Larach. I can't set with Larach because I called him and left messages for a week - he finally gave me a date in July 2014. I need 411 on Linda Cocchiarella and Peter Chang-Sing. Of the five doctors, which one is my best bet? What happens if I set with Linda Cocchiarella or Peter Chang-Sing and DA sets with Malcolm McHenry or Gerald Levine? M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95825 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428
AI Analysis:
The message discusses a QME/AME panel selection in an Internal Medicine - Endocrinology, Diabetes specialty, and Linda Cocchiarella is explicitly named as one of three panel physicians being considered for strike or retention. The attorney (Tajer) is asking for guidance on which panelist to strike between Bailey and Cocchiarella, placing Cocchiarella directly in the context of a QME/AME panel evaluation decision. While the message does not contain detailed commentary on Cocchiarella's evaluation quality or report quality, it is substantively about her role as a medical evaluator on a disputed panel — which falls within the relevant criteria of panel recommendations and panel strikes.
Paula Date: November 16, 2013 11:08:00 AM Subject: RE: So Cal Internal - Bailey, Sherman, Cocchiarella Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Paula Wilson Search I'd strike Bailey. Paula Wilson, Esq. Law Offices of Kuper & Wilson A Professional Law Corporation 4344 Atlantic Avenue Long Beach , CA 90807 Telephone: 562-595-5600 Facsimile: 562-595-5605 From: Lester [mailto:ljf718@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 8:17 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] So Cal Internal - Bailey, Sherman, Cocchiarella List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search Strike Bailey. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills Sent from my iPhone On Nov 15, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Alan Tajer < tajerlaw@gmail.com > wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Alan Tajer Search Received an Internal Medicine - Endocrinology, Diabetes panel with the following: Joselyn Bailey James Sherman Linda Cocchiarella I was going to keep Sherman, but not sure who to strike between the other two. Appreciate any help. -Tajer Los Angeles _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly discusses Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) panel selection, which is directly relevant to her role as a medical evaluator. The discussion centers on whether to strike her from an occupational health PQME panel, and a prior comment references that 'Linda was good' in this evaluator context. Wendy Cantrell also notes she searched archives for information on Cocchiarella 'as a PQME' and found nothing. All references to Cocchiarella are squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context — panel strikes, evaluator quality, and panel selection strategy — with no mention of her as a treating physician.
"Wendy Cantrell" Date: October 14, 2013 6:34:00 PM Subject: RE: second request -- who to strike on occupational health doctorPQME list from hell. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search I looked and couldn't find anything on Cocchiarella as a PQME. Found something saying that Hardy saying he was bad and a couple of posts indicating Jennings was bad. But the question at the moment is whom to strike? Who is the worst? Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) From: maddogbab@aol.com [mailto:maddogbab@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 4:08 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] second request -- who to strike on occupational health doctorPQME list from hell. List: lawnet Sent by: Brett A. Borah Search Take a peek into the LawNet archives. Mad Dog -----Original Message----- From: Michael Georgariou < mpg2d@yahoo.com > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Mon, Oct 14, 2013 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [lawnet] second request -- who to strike on occupational health doctor PQME list from hell. List: lawnet Sent by: Michael Georgariou Search Wasn't there prior discussions that Linda was good? Michael P. Georgariou II Sprenkle & Georgariou, LLP Attorneys at Law 1880 North Main Street, Suite 350 P.O. Box 3500 Salinas, CA 93912 Phone: (831) 449-8011 Fax: (831) 449-2201 On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:36 PM, "Wendy Cantrell" < wendy@hurtatwork.com > wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Any ideas as who would be the least harmful? Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) <image001.png> From: Wendy Cantrell [ mailto:wendy@hurtatwork.com ] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:52 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [lawnet] Cocchiarella, Hardy or Jennings List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Who would be the least harmful to my client? (Has pumped Diesel fuel for years and has CML which is in remission) Linda Cocchiarella (yes that Linda Cocchiarella) Scott Hardy (I know he is bad) Herbert Jennings It must be Monday. Thanks Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) <image001.png> _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is clearly discussing Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) in an occupational health context. The original poster (Wendy Cantrell) is asking which doctor on a PQME panel would be 'least harmful' to her client — a workers' comp claimant with CML who pumped diesel fuel. This is a panel strike/selection discussion, which is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context. Michael Georgariou's reply references prior discussions indicating 'Linda was good,' suggesting a track record as a medical evaluator. The parenthetical '(yes that Linda Cocchiarella)' implies she is well-known in the QME/medical-legal community. All references are to her evaluator role, not as a treating physician.
maddogbab@aol.com Date: October 14, 2013 6:08:00 PM Subject: Re: second request -- who to strike on occupational health doctorPQME list from hell. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Brett A. Borah Search Take a peek into the LawNet archives. Mad Dog -----Original Message----- From: Michael Georgariou <mpg2d@yahoo.com> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Mon, Oct 14, 2013 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [lawnet] second request -- who to strike on occupational health doctor PQME list from hell. List: lawnet Sent by: Michael Georgariou Search Wasn't there prior discussions that Linda was good? Michael P. Georgariou II Sprenkle & Georgariou, LLP Attorneys at Law 1880 North Main Street, Suite 350 P.O. Box 3500 Salinas, CA 93912 Phone: (831) 449-8011 Fax: (831) 449-2201 On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:36 PM, "Wendy Cantrell" < wendy@hurtatwork.com > wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Any ideas as who would be the least harmful? Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) <image001.png> From: Wendy Cantrell [ mailto:wendy@hurtatwork.com ] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:52 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [lawnet] Cocchiarella, Hardy or Jennings List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Who would be the least harmful to my client? (Has pumped Diesel fuel for years and has CML which is in remission) Linda Cocchiarella (yes that Linda Cocchiarella) Scott Hardy (I know he is bad) Herbert Jennings It must be Monday. Thanks Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) <image001.png> _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is explicitly about selecting from a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) list in an occupational health case. Wendy Cantrell is asking which evaluator would be 'least harmful' to her client from a panel list that includes Linda Cocchiarella, indicating a panel strike/selection decision. Michael Georgariou's reply references prior discussions about Linda being 'good,' which pertains to her reputation as a medical evaluator. The context — a worker with CML from diesel fuel exposure choosing between panel evaluators — is squarely a QME/AME evaluation context. The parenthetical '(yes that Linda Cocchiarella)' suggests she is a known figure in the QME/AME space. This is relevant evaluator-quality and panel-recommendation content, not treating physician content.
Michael Georgariou Date: October 14, 2013 6:05:00 PM Subject: Re: second request -- who to strike on occupational health doctor PQME list from hell. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Michael Georgariou Search Wasn't there prior discussions that Linda was good? Michael P. Georgariou II Sprenkle & Georgariou, LLP Attorneys at Law 1880 North Main Street, Suite 350 P.O. Box 3500 Salinas, CA 93912 Phone: (831) 449-8011 Fax: (831) 449-2201 On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:36 PM, "Wendy Cantrell" < wendy@hurtatwork.com > wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Any ideas as who would be the least harmful? Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) <image001.png> From: Wendy Cantrell [ mailto:wendy@hurtatwork.com ] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:52 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [lawnet] Cocchiarella, Hardy or Jennings List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Who would be the least harmful to my client? (Has pumped Diesel fuel for years and has CML which is in remission) Linda Cocchiarella (yes that Linda Cocchiarella) Scott Hardy (I know he is bad) Herbert Jennings It must be Monday. Thanks Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) <image001.png> _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is explicitly about a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) panel list in an occupational health dispute, and Linda Cocchiarella is named as one of three doctors on the panel being considered for a strike. The attorney is asking which panelist would be 'least harmful' to their client — a classic panel strike/selection discussion in a QME/AME context. The parenthetical '(yes that Linda Cocchiarella)' strongly implies she has a known reputation as a medical evaluator that practitioners recognize. The case involves a worker with CML (a serious illness) allegedly from diesel fuel exposure, which is a classic occupational injury/disease evaluation scenario. This is squarely about Cocchiarella's role as a PQME/QME evaluator, not as a treating physician.
"Wendy Cantrell" Date: October 14, 2013 5:37:00 PM Subject: second request -- who to strike on occupational health doctor PQME list from hell. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Any ideas as who would be the least harmful? Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) From: Wendy Cantrell [mailto:wendy@hurtatwork.com] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:52 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [lawnet] Cocchiarella, Hardy or Jennings List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Who would be the least harmful to my client? (Has pumped Diesel fuel for years and has CML which is in remission) Linda Cocchiarella (yes that Linda Cocchiarella) Scott Hardy (I know he is bad) Herbert Jennings It must be Monday. Thanks Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is a discussion among workers' compensation attorneys about who to strike from a QME panel. Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD is explicitly listed as a panel QME candidate, identified as the 'Editor of the AMA Guides.' The context is clearly a medical-legal evaluation panel selection discussion, not a treating physician context. The attorneys are deliberating over which panel doctor to strike, which is a direct QME/AME evaluator context. While no specific qualitative feedback about Cocchiarella's evaluation quality is provided beyond her credential as AMA Guides editor, her inclusion in this panel strike discussion is substantively relevant to her role as a medical evaluator.
"Sam Swift" Date: July 01, 2013 7:07:00 PM Subject: RE: Who would you stike? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Samuel R. Swift Search Bronschvag takes forever to get anything done and his reports make very little sense. Samuel R. Swift San Jose, CA From: Raymond Frost [mailto:frostlaw@ymail.com] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 3:41 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] Who would you stike? List: lawnet Sent by: Raymond Frost Search Unless your client is a safety officer, it would be malpractice to use Anderson. Even with safety officers, he will scour the medical records to come up with anything he can to try and rebut the heart presumption. raymondfrost /fremont From: Bruce < bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: [lawnet] Who would you stike? List: lawnet Sent by: J. Bruce Sutherland Search We have an internal Panel list of: Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD (Editor of the AMA Guides) Scott T. Anderson, MD Michael M. Bronshvag, MD. Thanks, J. Bruce Sutherland Law Offices of J. Bruce Sutherland 123 Jewell Street First Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 421-0240 (831) 421-0241-fax bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization _.___.__ _.___.__ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6454 - Release Date: 07/01/13
AI Analysis:
The message is directly about a QME/AME panel selection context ('Who would you strike?'), and Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD is listed as one of three panel doctors being considered. She is identified as the 'Editor of the AMA Guides,' which is a notable credential in the medical-legal/evaluator space. The discussion is about which panel doctor to strike, which is a classic QME/AME panel decision scenario. While the message does not provide deep substantive commentary specifically about Cocchiarella's evaluation quality or bias, her inclusion in a panel strike discussion and her identification by a key medical-legal credential (AMA Guides editorship) is directly relevant to her role as a medical evaluator. The primary discussion (about Anderson) does not diminish the relevance of Cocchiarella being named in a QME panel context.
Raymond Frost Date: July 01, 2013 5:41:00 PM Subject: Re: Who would you stike? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Raymond Frost Search Unless your client is a safety officer, it would be malpractice to use Anderson. Even with safety officers, he will scour the medical records to come up with anything he can to try and rebut the heart presumption. raymondfrost /fremont From: Bruce <bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: [lawnet] Who would you stike? List: lawnet Sent by: J. Bruce Sutherland Search We have an internal Panel list of: Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD (Editor of the AMA Guides) Scott T. Anderson, MD Michael M. Bronshvag, MD. Thanks, J. Bruce Sutherland Law Offices of J. Bruce Sutherland 123 Jewell Street First Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 421-0240 (831) 421-0241-fax bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is from a workers' compensation attorney (J. Bruce Sutherland) asking colleagues which doctor they would 'strike' from a QME panel list. Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD is explicitly named as one of three doctors on an internal panel list, and she is identified as the 'Editor of the AMA Guides' — a direct reference to her medical-legal credentials relevant to disability ratings and evaluations. The context of 'striking' a panel doctor is a QME/AME panel selection process, making this directly relevant to her role as a medical evaluator. The response from Arjuna Farnsworth (Boxer & Gerson, LLP) further confirms this is a workers' compensation legal context involving panel QME selection strategy.
Call me Arjuna Farnsworth, Esq. Boxer & Gerson, LLP 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 PHONE: 510-835-8870 | DIRECT : 510-286-2947 FAX : 510-835-0415 www.boxerlaw.com From: bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com To: lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:43:54 -0400 Subject: [lawnet] Who would you stike? List: lawnet Sent by: J. Bruce Sutherland Search We have an internal Panel list of: Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD (Editor of the AMA Guides) Scott T. Anderson, MD Michael M. Bronshvag, MD. Thanks, J. Bruce Sutherland Law Offices of J. Bruce Sutherland 123 Jewell Street First Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 421-0240 (831) 421-0241-fax bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message is from a workers' compensation attorney (Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law) asking colleagues which doctor to strike from a QME panel. Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD is listed as one of three doctors on an internal panel list, and is identified as the 'Editor of the AMA Guides' — a highly relevant credential in the QME/AME context since the AMA Guides are the standard used for disability ratings in California workers' comp evaluations. The act of striking panel members is a core QME panel process, making this directly relevant to her role as a medical evaluator. No treating physician (PTP/STP) context is present.
Bruce Date: July 01, 2013 12:44:00 PM Subject: Who would you stike? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: J. Bruce Sutherland Search We have an internal Panel list of: Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD (Editor of the AMA Guides) Scott T. Anderson, MD Michael M. Bronshvag, MD. Thanks, J. Bruce Sutherland Law Offices of J. Bruce Sutherland 123 Jewell Street First Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 421-0240 (831) 421-0241-fax bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
AI Analysis:
The message references Dr. Cocchiarella explicitly in the context of a QME panel list ('SoCalPQME list internal'), identifying her as a QME. Charles Rondeau comments on her track record (or lack thereof) as a QME evaluator, noting she has 'no track record yet' but is 'not out to get injured workers' — this is a direct assessment of her objectivity and fairness as a medical evaluator. The context is clearly QME/AME evaluation, not treating physician activity.
"Richard A. Prieto, Esq." Date: May 23, 2013 8:23:00 PM Subject: Re:Re: SoCalPQME list internal Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Richard A. Prieto Search Based on my experience I have to concur with Chuck. Dr. Stewart produced an AME report on a significant case saying he saw no causal connection between the work injury and my client's disability. Since he didn't bother to back up his opinion we were able to get it thrown out at the cross examination. Richard Prieto -----Original Message----- From: "Charles R. Rondeau" Sent: May 23, 2013 6:12 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re:[lawnet] Re: SoCalPQME list internal Alex, with all due respect to Mr. Stein, I totally disagree. The real "wash out", the guaranteed "wash out" doctor on that QME list is Gary Stewart. I have had favorable results with Dr. Majcher for years, including recently. Did I always get everything with him? Of course not. But I have had nothing but bad results with Dr. Stewart for the same number of years .. And recently. Dr. Stewart has totally sold out to the carriers and employers and even has gone out of his way to screw over (or at least try to) injured police officers and firefighters on presumptions cases with ridiculous and intellectually dishonest BS. Dr. Cocchiarella has no "track record" yet, so if she ends up being the QME who knows what you'll end up getting. Nevertheless, I can say that she is not "out to get" injured workers like Gary Stewart is. Chuck P.S., if you really want to know what I think about Dr. Stewart, give me a call. Chuck Rondeau -----Original Message----- From: neilstein@roadrunner.com Sent: May 22, 2013 5:56:18 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Alexander:stay clear of Macher.He has been completely turned around,and is a wash out doctor. -- Neil M.Stein Attorney At Law 16133 Ventura Blvd,#1200 Encino,California,91436 8189908232 neilstein@roadrunner.com ---- "Alexander G. Cozzaglio" wrote: > CAAALeauges, > > > > I have Stanly Matcher, Linda Cocchiarella and Gary Stewart. I need as much > of the internal gastro issue to be found to be industrial as possible since > the psyche AME left the apportionment question 20% of psyche due to internal > from work injury meds if internal qme finds industrial. So if internal qme > finds internal gastro issues to be non industrial, I have a problem. > > > > Would appreciate any insight you may have on these internal QME's > > > > by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO > > 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 > > Van Nuys, CA 91401 > > agc@cozzagliolaw.com > > 818-257-8026 > > 818-902-9978 fx > > > > Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law > > CAAA Regular Member > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential > and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be > legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that > any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the > intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received > this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > > > > > ---- end of message ---- ---- end of message ----
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly references Dr. Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel list ('SoCalPQME list internal'), identifying her as a QME evaluator. Charles Rondeau comments that she has no established 'track record' yet as a QME, but notably states she is 'not out to get injured workers' — which is a direct assessment of her objectivity and fairness as a medical evaluator. The entire discussion is framed around evaluating doctors on a QME panel list from a plaintiff/applicant attorney perspective, making the reference to Dr. Cocchiarella squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context.
"Alexander G. Cozzaglio" Date: May 23, 2013 1:31:00 PM Subject: RE: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Alex Cozzaglio Search Thank you for your responses. by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq . LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 Van Nuys, CA 91401 agc@cozzagliolaw.com 818-257-8026 818-902-9978 fx Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law CAAA Regular Member The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. From: Charles R. Rondeau [mailto:charlesrondeau@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:13 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re:[lawnet] Re: SoCalPQME list internal List: lawnet Sent by: Charles R. Rondeau Search Alex, with all due respect to Mr. Stein, I totally disagree. The real "wash out", the guaranteed "wash out" doctor on that QME list is Gary Stewart. I have had favorable results with Dr. Majcher for years, including recently. Did I always get everything with him? Of course not. But I have had nothing but bad results with Dr. Stewart for the same number of years .. And recently. Dr. Stewart has totally sold out to the carriers and employers and even has gone out of his way to screw over (or at least try to) injured police officers and firefighters on presumptions cases with ridiculous and intellectually dishonest BS. Dr. Cocchiarella has no "track record" yet, so if she ends up being the QME who knows what you'll end up getting. Nevertheless, I can say that she is not "out to get" injured workers like Gary Stewart is. Chuck P.S., if you really want to know what I think about Dr. Stewart, give me a call. Chuck Rondeau -----Original Message----- From: neilstein@roadrunner.com Sent: May 22, 2013 5:56:18 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Alexander:stay clear of Macher.He has been completely turned around,and is a wash out doctor. -- Neil M.Stein Attorney At Law 16133 Ventura Blvd,#1200 Encino,California,91436 8189908232 neilstein@roadrunner.com ---- "Alexander G. Cozzaglio" wrote: > CAAALeauges, > > > > I have Stanly Matcher, Linda Cocchiarella and Gary Stewart. I need as much > of the internal gastro issue to be found to be industrial as possible since > the psyche AME left the apportionment question 20% of psyche due to internal > from work injury meds if internal qme finds industrial. So if internal qme > finds internal gastro issues to be non industrial, I have a problem. > > > > Would appreciate any insight you may have on these internal QME's > > > > by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO > > 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 > > Van Nuys, CA 91401 > > agc@cozzagliolaw.com > > 818-257-8026 > > 818-902-9978 fx > > > > Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law > > CAAA Regular Member > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential > and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be > legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that > any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the > intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received > this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > > > > > ---- end of message ---- _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly references Linda Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel selection for an internal medicine evaluation in a workers' compensation case. Attorney Cozzaglio identifies her as one of three 'internal QMEs' on a panel and is seeking insight into her tendencies as a medical evaluator — specifically whether she is likely to find internal gastro issues industrial vs. non-industrial. This is directly relevant to her role as a QME/AME evaluator, touching on her track record and evaluation tendencies in disputed industrial causation questions. No treating physician (PTP/STP) context is present.
May 22, 2013 5:56:00 PM Subject: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Neil Stein Search Alexander:stay clear of Macher.He has been completely turned around,and is a wash out doctor. -- Neil M.Stein Attorney At Law 16133 Ventura Blvd,#1200 Encino,California,91436 8189908232 neilstein@roadrunner.com ---- "Alexander G. Cozzaglio" wrote: > CAAALeauges, > > > > I have Stanly Matcher, Linda Cocchiarella and Gary Stewart. I need as much > of the internal gastro issue to be found to be industrial as possible since > the psyche AME left the apportionment question 20% of psyche due to internal > from work injury meds if internal qme finds industrial. So if internal qme > finds internal gastro issues to be non industrial, I have a problem. > > > > Would appreciate any insight you may have on these internal QME's > > > > by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO > > 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 > > Van Nuys, CA 91401 > > agc@cozzagliolaw.com > > 818-257-8026 > > 818-902-9978 fx > > > > Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law > > CAAA Regular Member > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential > and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be > legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that > any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the > intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received > this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > > > > > ---- end of message ----
AI Analysis:
The message is from a legal listserv (lawnet) where attorneys are discussing and comparing PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) doctors, specifically in the context of medical-legal evaluations. Cocchiarella is being compared unfavorably to James H. Sherman, M.D. as a PQME evaluator — attorney Lester Friedman states he would prefer Sherman over Cocchiarella, and earlier states he would prefer even an unknown (Fishman) over Cocchiarella. This is a panel recommendation/preference discussion among attorneys in a QME/AME context, which is directly relevant to evaluating Cocchiarella's quality as a medical evaluator. The context (PQME list, lawnet attorney forum, comparison of evaluators) confirms this is about her role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
LJF718@aol.com Date: December 23, 2013 5:01:00 PM Subject: Re: PQME James H. Sherman,M.D. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search What I meant to say is I would take Sherman over Cocchiarella. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills In a message dated 12/23/2013 2:29:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, LJF718@aol.com writes: List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search I don't know Fishman but I would take him over Cocchiarella. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills In a message dated 12/23/2013 10:54:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, PMCworkcomp@aol.com writes: List: lawnet Sent by: Philip Cohen Search Is he better than Cocchiarella and/or Ira Fishman? Philip M.Cohen, San Diego In a message dated 12/22/2013 7:59:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, ljf718@aol.com writes: List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search He is good. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills Sent from my iPhone On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:40 PM, PMCworkcomp@aol.com wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Philip Cohen Search Does anyone have any information on James H. Sherman, M.D.? He is on an internal PQME list in SoCal. Philip M.Cohen,San Diego _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is from a defense/applicant attorney on a legal listserv (lawnet) asking which of three doctors — Linda Cocchiarella, Scott Hardy, or Herbert Jennings — would be 'least harmful' to their client in the context of a workers' comp case involving diesel fuel exposure and CML. The framing ('least harmful to my client,' panel selection context, legal listserv, QME panel choice language) strongly indicates this is about selecting or striking a QME/AME panel evaluator, not a treating physician. The parenthetical '(yes that Linda Cocchiarella)' suggests she has a known reputation in the medical-legal evaluator community. Scott Hardy is described as 'bad' — consistent with evaluator reputation discussion. This is a QME/AME panel selection inquiry, making it relevant to Cocchiarella's role and reputation as a medical evaluator. No treating physician context is present.
"Wendy Cantrell" Date: October 14, 2013 11:52:00 AM Subject: Cocchiarella, Hardy or Jennings Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Wendy L. Cantrell Search Who would be the least harmful to my client? (Has pumped Diesel fuel for years and has CML which is in remission) Linda Cocchiarella (yes that Linda Cocchiarella) Scott Hardy (I know he is bad) Herbert Jennings It must be Monday. Thanks Wendy L. Cantrell Law Offies of Richard Mark Baker 115 Pine Avenue Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 628-9400 (562) 628-1617 (fax) _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is explicitly about Linda Cocchiarella in her role as a QME (the subject line reads 'QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose'). The discussion centers on whether to depose her as a QME, specifically regarding her apportionment opinions in a workers' compensation medical-legal context. This directly concerns her role as a medical evaluator — her apportionment findings are a core QME function. While the message itself is more of a procedural/strategic legal discussion among attorneys rather than a direct quality assessment of her evaluation, it does reference her apportionment opinions as a point of contention, which is relevant to evaluating her track record and the nature of her medical-legal reports. The content is squarely within the QME/AME evaluator context and contains no PTP/treating physician references.
"Kimberley J. Pryor" Date: November 14, 2024 7:08:00 PM Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I agree, why depose, but some some judges are "ignorant" of the law and are defense biased and order cases OTOC so defendants can depose the QME to try to get better apportionment opinions. Winslow West of the DWC told me it is also the duty of the applicant's attorney to help prove up apportionment. I told him he was wrong. Yeah... KJ Pryor, Esq. -----Original Message----- From: darin@mitchellandpowell.com Sent: November 14, 2024 6:14:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: QME Linda Cocchiarella-To Depose or Not to Depose I agree with Dane: why go to that effort when it is not your burden to disprove? Send a demand without apportionment and then file a DOR if they do nothing. Darin Powell -- Mitchell & Powell A Professional Law Corp. (Phone) 559.733.9898 / 559.733.5655 (Fax) www.mitchellandpowell.com
AI Analysis:
The message discusses Dr. Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel (Rheumatology specialty panel), where she is the 'default doctor' on a workers' comp panel. This is clearly a QME/AME evaluator context, not a treating physician context. Robin Schwebs' comment that she is a 'good fiction writer' is a negative characterization of her medical-legal report quality as an evaluator. The client's resistance to seeing her as a QME also implies concerns about her qualifications/credibility as an evaluator. The discussion centers on whether to accept or strike her from the panel, which is directly relevant to her role as a medical evaluator.
rschwebs@verizon.net Date: February 26, 2014 5:17:00 PM Subject: Re: RE: Internists Listed as Rheumatologists Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Robin Schwebs Search I have the same probklem with Cocciarella. How do you know she is not a Rheumatologist? She is a good fiction writer. Robin Schwebs Claremont, CA On 02/26/14, M. Hollie Rutkowski<Hollie@TCLC.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Hollie Rutkowski Search Rheumatology is a subspecialty of Internal Medicine. Besides, you have a good "default doctor". How should you handle this - ask the nurse what she wants to do, go to Dr. Cocchiarella or refuse to go and have her benefits suspended? What exactly does she what you to do anyway? Send her to a doctor of her choice or some other cuckoo idea? M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento , CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: Maurice Abarr [ mailto:maurice@abarrlaw.com ] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:34 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [lawnet] Internists Listed as Rheumatologists List: lawnet Sent by: Maurice L. Abarr Search I have a panel that is supposed to be in Rheumatology. All 3 doctors are categorized as: "Internist - Rheumatology". The default doctor is Dr. Cocchiarella. My client, a nurse, who researches everything on the case is resisting going to Dr. Cocchiarella because she is not a Rheumatologist. Any suggestions on how to handle this? -- MAURICE L. ABARR - LAWYER, INC. 201 E. Sandpointe Ave., Suite 480 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 543-8416 Tel (714) 641-4809 Fax Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right. -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message discusses Dr. Cocchiarella specifically in the context of a QME panel — she is listed as the 'default doctor' on a panel that was requested in Rheumatology. The lawyer's client is resisting going to Dr. Cocchiarella as a QME/panel evaluator because she is categorized as 'Internist - Rheumatology' rather than a board-certified Rheumatologist. This directly relates to her role as a medical evaluator on a QME panel, touching on panel composition, specialty qualifications, and a potential panel strike consideration. While the message does not discuss evaluation quality or report quality directly, it does contain substantive information about Dr. Cocchiarella's credentials and suitability as a QME panel evaluator, which is relevant to the QME/AME evaluation context.
I have a panel that is supposed to be in Rheumatology. All 3 doctors are categorized as: "Internist - Rheumatology". The default doctor is Dr. Cocchiarella. My client, a nurse, who researches everything on the case is resisting going to Dr. Cocchiarella because she is not a Rheumatologist. Any suggestions on how to handle this? -- MAURICE L. ABARR - LAWYER, INC. 201 E. Sandpointe Ave., Suite 480 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 543-8416 Tel (714) 641-4809 Fax Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right. -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
AI Analysis:
Linda Cocchiarella is explicitly mentioned in the context of being recommended as an AME (Agreed Medical Evaluator) for internal medicine evaluations, specifically for causal relationship of hypertension to industrial injury. She is listed alongside other internists as someone who books through ExamWorks for AME purposes. While the message does not provide detailed quality assessment of her evaluations, it does identify her in her capacity as a medical evaluator (AME), which is directly relevant to the QME/AME evaluation focus. The recommendation implies she is a known and used AME in Northern California for internal medicine cases.
maddogbab@aol.com Date: February 25, 2014 7:27:00 PM Subject: Re: NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Brett A. Borah Search Olga: Adam Duhan if he still works out of Albany 510.524.1680. Roger Nacouzi who books through MedLink. 415.399.9769. Gerald Besses, Linda Cocchiarella or Suresh Mahawar all of whom book through ExamWorks. 800.458.1261. Mad Dog -----Original Message----- From: Olga Mandel <olgamandel@cox.net> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 5:21 pm Subject: [lawnet] NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S List: lawnet Sent by: Olga Sherr Mandel Search Dear Northern CAAAleagues: Please suggest internists to propose as AME'S to evaluate causal relationship of hypertension to industrial injury. My IW resides in East Bay. My DA is Kathleen Roberts. Telephone #'s are also appreciated. Thank you for all responses. Olga Sherr Mandel, Esq. La Mesa, CA; formerly in San Jose _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message is from a legal listserv (lawnet) discussing PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) options, which is a medical evaluator context. Lester Friedman, an attorney in Beverly Hills, states he would 'take [Fishman] over Cocchiarella,' implying a comparative preference among medical evaluators. Philip Cohen's question 'Is he better than Cocchiarella and/or Ira Fishman?' is explicitly framed in the context of evaluating a PQME candidate (James H. Sherman, M.D.). This indicates Cocchiarella is being discussed and compared as a medical evaluator (PQME/QME), not as a treating physician. While the commentary is brief and lacks detailed reasoning, it does convey a negative comparative opinion of Cocchiarella in her role as a medical evaluator.
LJF718@aol.com Date: December 23, 2013 4:29:00 PM Subject: Re: PQME James H. Sherman,M.D. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search I don't know Fishman but I would take him over Cocchiarella. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills In a message dated 12/23/2013 10:54:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, PMCworkcomp@aol.com writes: List: lawnet Sent by: Philip Cohen Search Is he better than Cocchiarella and/or Ira Fishman? Philip M.Cohen, San Diego In a message dated 12/22/2013 7:59:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, ljf718@aol.com writes: List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search He is good. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills Sent from my iPhone On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:40 PM, PMCworkcomp@aol.com wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Philip Cohen Search Does anyone have any information on James H. Sherman, M.D.? He is on an internal PQME list in SoCal. Philip M.Cohen,San Diego _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
Linda Cocchiarella is mentioned as a member of a PQME/QME panel (Panel dated 4/9/13) in a cardiology/internal medicine case. The message discusses panel selection strategy, including whether to strike panel members (e.g., McHenry) or select from the panel. This is directly in the context of her role as a medical evaluator (QME/PQME), not as a treating physician. However, the message contains no substantive information about her evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, or track record — she is only listed as a panel member by name. Relevance is confirmed because her inclusion on a QME panel is directly germane to her role as a medical evaluator, but the confidence is moderate since no qualitative assessment of her evaluator performance is provided.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: November 05, 2013 1:51:00 PM Subject: Second REquest - Two Panels from 4/13, can I just pick a PQME? From which one? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Hollie Rutkowski Search Both DA and I asked for Panels on a heart case. We then agreed to Blau as AME. Panels finally arrived but we had Blau AME scheduled by then, so ignored the Panels. Blau found non-industrial, then retired before I could take his depo, so now we are back at square one. I offered Richard Levy as AME. DA has not responded in two weeks. DA does not know his file because the DA who had the file up and left for another firm. leaving this new DA holding the bag. We got two different Panels, one Cardiologists, one Internal Medicine, both dated 4/9/13. The Panel DA requested was better - Linda Cocchiarella, Malcolm McHenry, Juan Larach . My Panel was Norman Panting, Peter Chang-Sing, Gerald Levine . They are both valid Panels. What is my next move? Strike McHenry? or just pick Larach? or Strike McHenry and Panting? or pick whoever I want from whichever Panel I want? If I know that DA does not realize he has two Panels, it would be best for me to come clean and let him know - Right? M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95825 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428
AI Analysis:
Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD is explicitly listed as a panel QME option in a workers' compensation panel strike discussion among attorneys on a legal listserv (lawnet). The message identifies her as 'Editor of the AMA Guides,' which is directly relevant to her role as a medical evaluator, as the AMA Guides are the standard used for disability ratings in QME/AME evaluations. The entire thread is about which panel doctor to strike, which is a QME panel context. While no detailed evaluation quality feedback is provided specifically about Cocchiarella (the thread resolves to striking Anderson instead), her inclusion in the panel list and identification by her AMA Guides credentials in a strike-decision context constitutes relevant QME/AME evaluator information. Confidence is not higher because no substantive commentary on her evaluation quality, objectivity, or report quality is provided.
Bruce Date: July 01, 2013 8:05:00 PM Subject: RE: Who would you stike? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: J. Bruce Sutherland Search Thanks to all who commented. The answer: STRIKE SCOTT ANDERSON. Gracias, JBS From: Sam Swift [mailto:samswift@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 5:07 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Who would you stike? List: lawnet Sent by: Samuel R. Swift Search Bronschvag takes forever to get anything done and his reports make very little sense. Samuel R. Swift San Jose, CA From: Raymond Frost [ mailto:frostlaw@ymail.com ] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 3:41 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] Who would you stike? List: lawnet Sent by: Raymond Frost Search Unless your client is a safety officer, it would be malpractice to use Anderson. Even with safety officers, he will scour the medical records to come up with anything he can to try and rebut the heart presumption. raymondfrost /fremont From: Bruce < bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: [lawnet] Who would you stike? List: lawnet Sent by: J. Bruce Sutherland Search We have an internal Panel list of: Linda K. Cocchiarella, MD (Editor of the AMA Guides) Scott T. Anderson, MD Michael M. Bronshvag, MD. Thanks, J. Bruce Sutherland Law Offices of J. Bruce Sutherland 123 Jewell Street First Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 421-0240 (831) 421-0241-fax bruce@jbsutherlandlaw.com Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization _.___.__ _.___.__ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6454 - Release Date: 07/01/13 _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly refers to Dr. Linda Cocchiarella in the context of 'internal Medicine PQMEs' (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluators), and the attorney is soliciting insight or experience with her specifically as a QME. This is clearly a QME/AME evaluator context — not a treating physician context. However, confidence is moderate rather than high because the message contains no substantive information about her quality, objectivity, report quality, or track record as an evaluator; it is only a solicitation for such information. The message is relevant as a QME inquiry but lacks evaluative content about her performance.
Nathan Howser Date: November 13, 2018 4:18:00 PM Subject: internal Medicine PQMEs Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lavaaa Sent By: Nathan Howser Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dr. Linda Cocchiarella Dr. Jacob Tsadok Any insight or experience with any of these QME’s? Thank you. *** PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS*** Nathan F. Howser, Esq. Mailing : 17412 Ventura Blvd. #300 Encino, CA 91316 Office : 16501 Ventura Blvd. Suite 400 Encino, CA 91436 Ph: (213) 377-5513 Fax: (213) 377-5514 www.howserlaw.com
AI Analysis:
The message is from a legal professional (Steve Scardino of Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein, a workers' compensation law firm) responding to a listserv discussion about choosing between Dr. Cocchiarella and Dr. Iftikhar Khan. The context of a law firm listserv (lawnet) comparing two doctors by name strongly implies a QME/AME panel selection discussion, as attorneys routinely consult each other on which evaluators to choose or strike from panels. The statement 'Cochiarrella is not good' in this context most likely refers to her quality as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician. Confidence is not higher because the message is very brief and does not explicitly mention QME/AME, leaving some ambiguity.
Steve Scardino Date: December 21, 2014 12:49:00 PM Subject: Re: Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Steven Scardino Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Cochiarrella is not good Steve Scardino Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Cell:213-321-3518 Fax:213-406-9185 On Dec 19, 2014, at 2:28 PM, "Christel A. Schoenfelder (lawnet listserver)" > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Christel A. Schoenfelder Reply To Sender Reply To List Search<<a href="http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr3x0qdEI8CzCWrOba9KVJ6X3XzapEVd7b9J6X3XzbbWbNJ6X3XzapEVd7b1J6UVUse73D73tbr52kawEzVk_j7bCOfBjZcsKrjRPm3hOM_R-u7e3C7-LsKDtN_AnTxPb5-mKDp55mWrDaxVZicHs3jq9J6VKVKVI05rtTw0e0nRDliiN4WDX6NcSgGT2TBQnT3hOUyOYnhvpojsKy2zZc0THrKY01dFEInKr1vF6y0QJDWo1FFtd40t7zh09lJoDbo-uvFEwH4Qg1Qud40qXehkDIjh01hfo4zrW9KMkY_U-J6jQV" target="_blank">http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr3x0qdEI8CzCWrOba9KVJ6X3XzapEVd7b9J6X3XzbbWbNJ6X3XzapEVd7b1J6UVUse73D73tbr52kawEzVk_j7bCOfBjZcsKrjRPm3hOM_R-u7e3C7-LsKDtN_AnTxPb5-mKDp55mWrDaxVZicHs3jq9J6VKVKVI05rtTw0e0nRDliiN4WDX6NcSgGT2TBQnT3hOUyOYnhvpojsKy2zZc0THrKY01dFEInKr1vF6y0QJDWo1FFtd40t7zh09lJoDbo-uvFEwH4Qg1Qud40qXehkDIjh01hfo4zrW9KMkY_U-J6jQV> Settings<<a href="http://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndxMsrhohd7dQTAmkjtPqdS7T6kPhOqemjqdS7T6mnQnzqdS7T6kPhOqem3qdNPMUse7ee6WmSa4El1h7OF-CendAvaDWoVsSDHCI6zBx_HYYes7cfZuVteXz_8LL3CmbYJteOaaJQTel3PWApmU6CQPqdPtPtPo0aSXL00s0LHeGABy9NYGjcOYNYmzW25FOH0U-l9z7PDa16xIxlK5LbELK6zBN5BUKy-OMCVt457Wo1LmTtU02rjhoLsS2_id41FrfQM3jiWq80Wf6y0iHqNemNYY_jh1m9Ew3EYq80RSsyFfoCy02yuM96TQjqxSUiniq" target="_blank">http://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndxMsrhohd7dQTAmkjtPqdS7T6kPhOqemjqdS7T6mnQnzqdS7T6kPhOqem3qdNPMUse7ee6WmSa4El1h7OF-CendAvaDWoVsSDHCI6zBx_HYYes7cfZuVteXz_8LL3CmbYJteOaaJQTel3PWApmU6CQPqdPtPtPo0aSXL00s0LHeGABy9NYGjcOYNYmzW25FOH0U-l9z7PDa16xIxlK5LbELK6zBN5BUKy-OMCVt457Wo1LmTtU02rjhoLsS2_id41FrfQM3jiWq80Wf6y0iHqNemNYY_jh1m9Ew3EYq80RSsyFfoCy02yuM96TQjqxSUiniq> Dr. Cocchiarella washed out my client on a heart attack case. I don't know Dr. Khan. Christel Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2014, at 1:51 PM, "David Lupoff (lawnet listserver)" > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: David Lupoff Reply To Sender Reply To List Search<<a href="http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6wUSyMyqerFL8IECXCQrIfKcFCzAQsICQrIfKcILEL6QrIfKcFCzAQsI6QrzDxMUsessdQJIk9gG2yfBjZcsKr8-lfQNOVJfndod7b3_nVUsUeovWZOWtT7-hvu7cInVqWtAklrFKsG7DR8OJMddICQrCXCXCM0lJTu00U1vmtl9b4jGvIr4Pp2Hsbunhvsd7bybbNt5ZBxdOW8afQM3uJKXM04SCyNuVI5-Aq83iSvFw6CBQQg1Qud40BmRysJzVV-Cy2Ijh07hUQg1HIV5iuNd4054ZwidLECP1dx" target="_blank">http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6wUSyMyqerFL8IECXCQrIfKcFCzAQsICQrIfKcILEL6QrIfKcFCzAQsI6QrzDxMUsessdQJIk9gG2yfBjZcsKr8-lfQNOVJfndod7b3_nVUsUeovWZOWtT7-hvu7cInVqWtAklrFKsG7DR8OJMddICQrCXCXCM0lJTu00U1vmtl9b4jGvIr4Pp2Hsbunhvsd7bybbNt5ZBxdOW8afQM3uJKXM04SCyNuVI5-Aq83iSvFw6CBQQg1Qud40BmRysJzVV-Cy2Ijh07hUQg1HIV5iuNd4054ZwidLECP1dx> Settings<<a href="http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6hAp3zqb29EVKCYyOyrKrhKM-UOCqejhOOrhKM-UOO-yYrhKM-UOCqejhOMrhKeu73xMVNMTiSNgB2Ea8-lfQNOVIzVk_j7bCQZsRwQsIfZvDxPwVx_HTbFTsvV5ZUsONvBHFShhlKCVOEuvkzaT0QSMrhKrKrKr01mTtU03w5ZpRkAIhefBipCnCfyQ40gvggJelo77OFco-sVg8QdAaJMJVt5ZMQsK8IL5QnSm4TbEwE_j0dWSXL00jqqb5XCMnWhEwdbp-C0qqnjh07hUQg2lrm9OSfDDWq8aNd40t7zh06KPAl9X4Qg0kjS18S-yrZfiX" target="_blank">http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6hAp3zqb29EVKCYyOyrKrhKM-UOCqejhOOrhKM-UOO-yYrhKM-UOCqejhOMrhKeu73xMVNMTiSNgB2Ea8-lfQNOVIzVk_j7bCQZsRwQsIfZvDxPwVx_HTbFTsvV5ZUsONvBHFShhlKCVOEuvkzaT0QSMrhKrKrKr01mTtU03w5ZpRkAIhefBipCnCfyQ40gvggJelo77OFco-sVg8QdAaJMJVt5ZMQsK8IL5QnSm4TbEwE_j0dWSXL00jqqb5XCMnWhEwdbp-C0qqnjh07hUQg2lrm9OSfDDWq8aNd40t7zh06KPAl9X4Qg0kjS18S-yrZfiX> Hello Colleagues, I have a client who suffered a heart attack at work, and now I am reviewing the panel docs. The deft's struck Dr. Hyman, leaving behind Drs Cocchiarella and Khan. Who should I strike? Thank you in advance for your assistance. David Law Offices of David B. Lupoff 15915 Ventura Blvd. Penthouse 4 Encino, CA 91436 P. 818.385.0520 F. 818.986.1657 _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message discusses Dr. Cocchiarella in the context of a QME panel — she is identified as the 'default doctor' on a Rheumatology panel. The discussion centers on whether a client should go to Dr. Cocchiarella as a panel evaluator, and the client's resistance is based on a concern about her specialty classification (Internist vs. Rheumatologist). This is squarely a QME panel context, not a treating physician context. However, the message contains no substantive information about her evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, or track record — only that she exists on a panel and a client is resistant to seeing her due to specialty concerns. Still marked relevant because it pertains to her role as a QME panel evaluator and the specialty qualification issue could be meaningful to the Synthesis Analyzer.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: February 26, 2014 2:45:00 PM Subject: RE: Internists Listed as Rheumatologists Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Hollie Rutkowski Search Rheumatology is a subspecialty of Internal Medicine. Besides, you have a good "default doctor". How should you handle this - ask the nurse what she wants to do, go to Dr. Cocchiarella or refuse to go and have her benefits suspended? What exactly does she what you to do anyway? Send her to a doctor of her choice or some other cuckoo idea? M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento , CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: Maurice Abarr [mailto:maurice@abarrlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:34 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: [lawnet] Internists Listed as Rheumatologists List: lawnet Sent by: Maurice L. Abarr Search I have a panel that is supposed to be in Rheumatology. All 3 doctors are categorized as: "Internist - Rheumatology". The default doctor is Dr. Cocchiarella. My client, a nurse, who researches everything on the case is resisting going to Dr. Cocchiarella because she is not a Rheumatologist. Any suggestions on how to handle this? -- MAURICE L. ABARR - LAWYER, INC. 201 E. Sandpointe Ave., Suite 480 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 543-8416 Tel (714) 641-4809 Fax Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles; Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right. -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. _.___.__
AI Analysis:
Linda Cocchiarella is mentioned as a panel member on a PQME/QME panel (the DA's requested panel: Linda Cocchiarella, Malcolm McHenry, Juan Larach) in a cardiology/internal medicine workers' comp dispute. This is directly relevant to her role as a medical evaluator — she appears on a valid QME panel being considered for selection or striking. However, the message contains no substantive information about her evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, or track record. She is simply listed as a panel member. The relevance is moderate because her presence on a QME panel is confirmed, but no evaluative commentary about her performance as a QME/AME is provided.
"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: November 04, 2013 3:11:00 PM Subject: Two Panels from 4/13, can I just pick a PQME? From which one? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Hollie Rutkowski Search Both DA and I asked for Panels on a heart case. We then agreed to Blau as AME. Panels finally arrived but we had Blau AME scheduled by then, so ignored the Panels. Blau found non-industrial, then retired before I could take his depo, so now we are back at square one. I offered Richard Levy as AME. DA has not responded in two weeks. DA does not know his file because the DA who had the file up and left for another firm. leaving this new DA holding the bag. We got two different Panels, one Cardiologists, one Internal Medicine, both dated 4/9/13. The Panel DA requested was better - Linda Cocchiarella, Malcolm McHenry, Juan Larach . My Panel was Norman Panting, Peter Chang-Sing, Gerald Levine . They are both valid Panels. What is my next move? Strike McHenry? or just pick Larach? or Strike McHenry and Panting? or pick whoever I want from whichever Panel I want? If I know that DA does not realize he has two Panels, it would be best for me to come clean and let him know - Right? M. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95825 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428
AI Analysis:
The subject line explicitly references 'QME Linda Cocchiarella' and discusses whether to depose her, which is directly related to her role as a medical evaluator in a workers' compensation context. Depositions are a standard legal tool used to challenge or clarify QME/AME medical-legal reports. However, the body of the message itself contains no substantive information about her evaluation quality, objectivity, or report content — it is merely a brief acknowledgment reply ('Thank you Hollie! Points well taken!'). The QME/AME context is confirmed by the subject line, but the message body contributes no evaluator-specific content. Marked relevant due to the explicit QME subject line context, but with moderate confidence given the lack of substantive evaluator information in the message body.
Thank you Hollie! Points well taken! Scott M. Blumen, Esq., APC, C ertified Legal Specialist Workers’ Compensation Law, State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 2878 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)293-4694 fax: (619)299-5454 website: www.scottblumenlaw.com
AI Analysis:
The message references Cocchiarella in a comparative context within a workers' comp legal listserv (lawnet) discussion about a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator). Philip Cohen asks if James H. Sherman is 'better than Cocchiarella and/or Ira Fishman,' implying a comparison of their quality as medical evaluators in the PQME/QME context. The conversation is clearly among workers' comp attorneys discussing evaluators, not treating physicians. However, the mention of Cocchiarella is extremely brief with no substantive detail about her evaluation quality, objectivity, or report quality — it is only an implicit comparative reference. Confidence is moderate rather than high due to the lack of substantive evaluator-specific information about her performance.
PMCworkcomp@aol.com Date: December 23, 2013 12:54:00 PM Subject: Re: PQME James H. Sherman,M.D. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Philip Cohen Search Is he better than Cocchiarella and/or Ira Fishman? Philip M.Cohen, San Diego In a message dated 12/22/2013 7:59:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, ljf718@aol.com writes: List: lawnet Sent by: Lester Friedman Search He is good. Lester Friedman Beverly Hills Sent from my iPhone On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:40 PM, PMCworkcomp@aol.com wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Philip Cohen Search Does anyone have any information on James H. Sherman, M.D.? He is on an internal PQME list in SoCal. Philip M.Cohen,San Diego _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
The message references Cocchiarella in a context that implies a QME/AME evaluator discussion — the subject line 'Who would you strike?' is a panel strike conversation, and the broader message discusses other doctors (Scott Anderson, Bronsvhag) explicitly as AMEs/evaluators. The commenter says they 'liked' Cocchiarella after hearing her speak but has 'not seen her reports,' suggesting she is being considered as a potential evaluator. However, the information about Cocchiarella herself is minimal and indirect — no direct QME/AME evaluation quality, report quality, or rating assessment is provided. Marked relevant at moderate confidence because the panel-strike context and evaluator framing make this a QME/AME discussion, but the substantive content about Cocchiarella specifically is very limited.
I agree with Mad Dog although I did not talk to her at convention, I have heard Cocchiarella speak and I liked her. Have not seen her reports. Scott Anderson has had some luke warm comments. I personally had him as the AME on one case re chronic pain person with med caused Gastritis and sleep and he did not give much of anything for either. I avoid him now if I can. Bronsvhag - forget it he will not give a final opinion and with punt the ball to another dr. Jim Gonzalez - Salinas
AI Analysis:
This message discusses Dr. Jonathan Ng, not Linda Cocchiarella. The content references a WCAB case (Frazier v CDCR, 2013) involving Dr. Ng's use of AMA Guides 6th instead of the statutorily mandated AMA Guides 5th in a corrections officer's evaluation. While the subject matter (WPI ratings, PD assessments, AMA Guides) would be relevant QME/AME evaluator content, it pertains entirely to a different doctor. Linda Cocchiarella is not mentioned anywhere in this message.
"Bret Graham" Date: June 28, 2024 12:44:00 PM Subject: Re: Jonathan Ng (Internal) Any information Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: edward frazier v calif corrections wcab ca oct 2013.pdf (423 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Bret Graham Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Except when he decided to lower a corrections officer’s heart WPI and PD by using AMA Guides 6 th instead of the statutorily mandated AMA Guides 5 th . The WCAB explained the law to the doctor . See Frazier v CDCR (2013). It was Mr. Redula’s case, so I would defer to his opinions on Dr. Ng regardless . Bret Graham, Esq. Nava Graham Montebello 420 N. Montebello Blvd., Ste 301 Montebello, CA 90640 (323) 888-1818 Ph (323) 888-7788 Fax (213) 590-1388 cell
AI Analysis:
This message is a listserv exchange between attorneys (Robert G. Burton and J.C. Sarmiento) requesting a page from the AMA Guides 5th Edition (Table 6-27, p. 506). While the AMA Guides are commonly used in QME/AME evaluations, this message contains no information about Linda Cocchiarella as a medical evaluator or in any other capacity. Linda Cocchiarella is not mentioned anywhere in the message. The message is simply a request for a document page with an attached PDF of the AMA Guides.
"J. C. Sarmiento" Date: September 09, 2020 7:00:00 PM Subject: Re: Table 6-27, p 506 of the guides Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: ama guides 5th-min copy 2.pdf (5377 K) List: lawnet Sent By: John Sarmiento Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings On Wednesday, September 9, 2020, 4:17:50 PM PDT, Robert G. Burton (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Robert G. Burton Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mates-I don’t have my guides at home. Can someone send me this page? I seem to recall there was a digital version floating around. Anyone know of one? Thanks Bob Burton Sent from my iPad
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention linda cocchiarella at all. It is a communication from Ron Ehrman, Esq. to 'Alex' on the 'lawnet' listserv, referencing an attached document about a formula for percentage loss of lumbar spine. While the topic (lumbar spine impairment rating) could be tangentially related to QME/AME work, the doctor in question is not mentioned anywhere in the message. The message contains no substantive QME/AME evaluator information about linda cocchiarella.
"Ron Ehrman, Esq." Date: May 22, 2015 6:13:00 PM Subject: Formula for percentage loss of lumbar spine Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: direct adl method.doc (72 K) List: lawnet Sent By: ron ehrman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Alex, See attached, compiled from prior posts. Ron Ehrman Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
This message thread discusses Dr. Mahawar as a QME/AME evaluator, not linda cocchiarella. The doctor being evaluated (linda cocchiarella) is not mentioned anywhere in this message. The content is entirely about Mahawar's evaluation tendencies in cumulative trauma cases.
Jim Smolich Date: February 27, 2014 6:53:00 PM Subject: RE: NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Jim Smolich Search Mahawar does not like cumulative cases. He was a P-QME for my client who was a hod carrier who built freeway sound walls for over twenty years. Exceptionally heavy work. Mahawar found the neck and hips non-industrial, and found the knees to be only 25% industrial. There were no non-industrial injuries. He reported that the severe degeneration was due to normal aging in a 53 year old person! His deposition is pending. From my one experience, I would stay away from Mahawar. JIM SMOLICH ATTORNEY AT LAW SMOLICH & SMOLICH 3200 "J" Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Phone: (916) 443-2988 Fax: (916) 443-2675 From: Michael Georgariou [mailto:mpg2d@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:52 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S List: lawnet Sent by: Michael Georgariou Search Mahawar may have seen the light. He used to be a washout artist. But I see a lot if DAs striking him. Michael P. Georgariou II Sprenkle & Georgariou, LLP Attorneys at Law 1880 North Main Street, Suite 350 P.O. Box 3500 Salinas, CA 93912 Phone: (831) 449-8011 Fax: (831) 449-2201 On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:41 AM, "Jeff Dittrich" < jcdittrich@injuryattny.com > wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Jeffrey C. Dittrich Search I would strongly disagree with Mahawar. He is bad to the bone in my book. Jeffrey Dittrich, Esq. Work Comp and PI San Jose and Salinas jcdittrich@injuryattny.com Ofc: (831) 442-7232 Cell: (831) 594-6477 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Amos, Dittrich & Ushana notifies you that you are not represented by us for any legal matter unless and until we either enter into a written retainer agreement regarding any civil matter or notify you by letter that we are accepting your workers' compensation case. Any statements made by this law firm in this communication are based upon very limited information and cannot be relied upon in legal matters. Unless this law firm has entered into representation of your case as described above, the information enclosed in this communication should not be taken as legal advice specific to your case, but simply regarded as general information. Do not take or refrain from taking any legal action based upon any content of this communication. This communication is intended solely for the recipients named above and is confidential and privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply communication and destroy all electronic and hard copies of this communication. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. This communication is protected by the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq. NOTICE OF NON-SERVICE: This law firm does not agree to accept service under the California Civil Code or 8 CCR 10505 by fax or email. Communications by fax or email by any person in this law firm with any other person does not constitute a waiver of that assertion. Legal service of any document upon this law firm must be made by first class U.S. Mail, by overnight delivery or in person. No other forms of "service" are accepted. From: maddogbab@aol.com [ mailto:maddogbab@aol.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:27 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S List: lawnet Sent by: Brett A. Borah Search Olga: Adam Duhan if he still works out of Albany 510.524.1680. Roger Nacouzi who books through MedLink. 415.399.9769. Gerald Besses, Linda Cocchiarella or Suresh Mahawar all of whom book through ExamWorks. 800.458.1261. Mad Dog -----Original Message----- From: Olga Mandel < olgamandel@cox.net > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 5:21 pm Subject: [lawnet] NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S List: lawnet Sent by: Olga Sherr Mandel Search Dear Northern CAAAleagues: Please suggest internists to propose as AME'S to evaluate causal relationship of hypertension to industrial injury. My IW resides in East Bay. My DA is Kathleen Roberts. Telephone #'s are also appreciated. Thank you for all responses. Olga Sherr Mandel, Esq. La Mesa, CA; formerly in San Jose _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention linda cocchiarella at all. The discussion is entirely about a doctor named 'Mahawar' and his qualities as a medical evaluator/AME, with attorneys Georgariou and Dittrich exchanging opinions about him. Linda cocchiarella is not referenced anywhere in this message.
Michael Georgariou Date: February 27, 2014 2:53:00 PM Subject: Re: NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Michael Georgariou Search Mahawar may have seen the light. He used to be a washout artist. But I see a lot if DAs striking him. Michael P. Georgariou II Sprenkle & Georgariou, LLP Attorneys at Law 1880 North Main Street, Suite 350 P.O. Box 3500 Salinas, CA 93912 Phone: (831) 449-8011 Fax: (831) 449-2201 On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:41 AM, "Jeff Dittrich" < jcdittrich@injuryattny.com > wrote: List: lawnet Sent by: Jeffrey C. Dittrich Search I would strongly disagree with Mahawar. He is bad to the bone in my book. Jeffrey Dittrich, Esq. Work Comp and PI San Jose and Salinas jcdittrich@injuryattny.com Ofc: (831) 442-7232 Cell: (831) 594-6477 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Amos, Dittrich & Ushana notifies you that you are not represented by us for any legal matter unless and until we either enter into a written retainer agreement regarding any civil matter or notify you by letter that we are accepting your workers' compensation case. Any statements made by this law firm in this communication are based upon very limited information and cannot be relied upon in legal matters. Unless this law firm has entered into representation of your case as described above, the information enclosed in this communication should not be taken as legal advice specific to your case, but simply regarded as general information. Do not take or refrain from taking any legal action based upon any content of this communication. This communication is intended solely for the recipients named above and is confidential and privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply communication and destroy all electronic and hard copies of this communication. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. This communication is protected by the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq. NOTICE OF NON-SERVICE: This law firm does not agree to accept service under the California Civil Code or 8 CCR 10505 by fax or email. Communications by fax or email by any person in this law firm with any other person does not constitute a waiver of that assertion. Legal service of any document upon this law firm must be made by first class U.S. Mail, by overnight delivery or in person. No other forms of "service" are accepted. From: maddogbab@aol.com [ mailto:maddogbab@aol.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:27 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S List: lawnet Sent by: Brett A. Borah Search Olga: Adam Duhan if he still works out of Albany 510.524.1680. Roger Nacouzi who books through MedLink. 415.399.9769. Gerald Besses, Linda Cocchiarella or Suresh Mahawar all of whom book through ExamWorks. 800.458.1261. Mad Dog -----Original Message----- From: Olga Mandel < olgamandel@cox.net > To: Statewide List Service < lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 5:21 pm Subject: [lawnet] NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S List: lawnet Sent by: Olga Sherr Mandel Search Dear Northern CAAAleagues: Please suggest internists to propose as AME'S to evaluate causal relationship of hypertension to industrial injury. My IW resides in East Bay. My DA is Kathleen Roberts. Telephone #'s are also appreciated. Thank you for all responses. Olga Sherr Mandel, Esq. La Mesa, CA; formerly in San Jose _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention linda cocchiarella at all. It references 'Mahawar' as the subject of the negative comment about being a bad evaluator. While the email subject 'NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S' suggests an AME context, there is no substantive information about linda cocchiarella as a medical evaluator or in any other capacity.
I would strongly disagree with Mahawar. He is bad to the bone in my book.
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention linda cocchiarella at all. It is entirely about Scott Anderson, discussing his conduct as a medical evaluator (deposition behavior, attitudes toward injured workers, callousness). Linda cocchiarella is not referenced anywhere in this message.
Strike Scott Anderson. There is no one worse. I am not going to into why he is so awful - I've written on him before - but he is hard-hearted, insensitive to the point of being callous, utterly without sympathy. He feels that weight gain is the injured workers fault, unless the injured worker is a para or quad, and then he would apportion to the para/quad's fault for not being able to control his calories intake and balance it with his calories output. I have taken Anderson's depo twice on one case. He will only testify for an hour, then we have to leave and re-schedule.I am going back for a third depo.
AI Analysis:
This message does not mention linda cocchiarella at all. The discussion is entirely about other doctors (Gary Stewart, Dr. Majcher) and their performance as QMEs/medical evaluators on a SoCalPQME list. While the message is relevant to the QME/AME context generally, it contains no information about linda cocchiarella in any capacity.
"Richard Mark Baker" Date: May 23, 2013 2:03:00 PM Subject: RE: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Mark Baker Search Sorry to be late to the party, to disagree with my friend Mr. Rondeau and maybe it's because I've known him for quite some time but with one exception (and it was a crappy case) Gary Stewart has consistently delivered for us. Baker/Long Beach Oops/forgot to sign From: Alexander G. Cozzaglio [ mailto:agc@cozzagliolaw.com ] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:31 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Re: SoCalPQME list internal List: lawnet Sent by: Alex Cozzaglio Search Thank you for your responses. by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq . LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 Van Nuys, CA 91401 agc@cozzagliolaw.com 818-257-8026 818-902-9978 fx Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law CAAA Regular Member The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. From: Charles R. Rondeau [ mailto:charlesrondeau@msn.com ] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:13 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re:[lawnet] Re: SoCalPQME list internal List: lawnet Sent by: Charles R. Rondeau Search Alex, with all due respect to Mr. Stein, I totally disagree. The real "wash out", the guaranteed "wash out" doctor on that QME list is Gary Stewart. I have had favorable results with Dr. Majcher for years, including recently. Did I always get everything with him? Of course not. But I have had nothing but bad results with Dr. Stewart for the same number of years .. And recently. Dr. Stewart has totally sold out to the carriers and employers and even has gone out of his way to screw over (or at least try to) injured police officers and firefighters on presumptions cases with ridiculous and intellectually dishonest BS. Dr. Cocchiarella has no "track record" yet, so if she ends up being the QME who knows what you'll end up getting. Nevertheless, I can say that she is not "out to get" injured workers like Gary Stewart is. Chuck P.S., if you really want to know what I think about Dr. Stewart, give me a call. Chuck Rondeau -----Original Message----- From: neilstein@roadrunner.com Sent: May 22, 2013 5:56:18 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Alexander:stay clear of Macher.He has been completely turned around,and is a wash out doctor. -- Neil M.Stein Attorney At Law 16133 Ventura Blvd,#1200 Encino,California,91436 8189908232 neilstein@roadrunner.com ---- "Alexander G. Cozzaglio" wrote: > CAAALeauges, > > > > I have Stanly Matcher, Linda Cocchiarella and Gary Stewart. I need as much > of the internal gastro issue to be found to be industrial as possible since > the psyche AME left the apportionment question 20% of psyche due to internal > from work injury meds if internal qme finds industrial. So if internal qme > finds internal gastro issues to be non industrial, I have a problem. > > > > Would appreciate any insight you may have on these internal QME's > > > > by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO > > 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 > > Van Nuys, CA 91401 > > agc@cozzagliolaw.com > > 818-257-8026 > > 818-902-9978 fx > > > > Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law > > CAAA Regular Member > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential > and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be > legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that > any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the > intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received > this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > > > > > ---- end of message ---- _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message contains no mention of linda cocchiarella whatsoever. The discussion is entirely about other doctors (Gary Stewart and Dr. Majcher) and their performance as QME evaluators. Linda cocchiarella is not referenced anywhere in this message thread.
"Richard Mark Baker" Date: May 23, 2013 1:55:00 PM Subject: RE: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Mark Baker Search Sorry to be late to the party, to disagree with my friend Mr. Rondeau and maybe it's because I've known him for quite some time but with one exception (and it was a crappy case) Gary Stewart has consistently delivered for us. From: Alexander G. Cozzaglio [mailto:agc@cozzagliolaw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:31 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Re: SoCalPQME list internal List: lawnet Sent by: Alex Cozzaglio Search Thank you for your responses. by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq . LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 Van Nuys, CA 91401 agc@cozzagliolaw.com 818-257-8026 818-902-9978 fx Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law CAAA Regular Member The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. From: Charles R. Rondeau [ mailto:charlesrondeau@msn.com ] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:13 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re:[lawnet] Re: SoCalPQME list internal List: lawnet Sent by: Charles R. Rondeau Search Alex, with all due respect to Mr. Stein, I totally disagree. The real "wash out", the guaranteed "wash out" doctor on that QME list is Gary Stewart. I have had favorable results with Dr. Majcher for years, including recently. Did I always get everything with him? Of course not. But I have had nothing but bad results with Dr. Stewart for the same number of years .. And recently. Dr. Stewart has totally sold out to the carriers and employers and even has gone out of his way to screw over (or at least try to) injured police officers and firefighters on presumptions cases with ridiculous and intellectually dishonest BS. Dr. Cocchiarella has no "track record" yet, so if she ends up being the QME who knows what you'll end up getting. Nevertheless, I can say that she is not "out to get" injured workers like Gary Stewart is. Chuck P.S., if you really want to know what I think about Dr. Stewart, give me a call. Chuck Rondeau -----Original Message----- From: neilstein@roadrunner.com Sent: May 22, 2013 5:56:18 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Alexander:stay clear of Macher.He has been completely turned around,and is a wash out doctor. -- Neil M.Stein Attorney At Law 16133 Ventura Blvd,#1200 Encino,California,91436 8189908232 neilstein@roadrunner.com ---- "Alexander G. Cozzaglio" wrote: > CAAALeauges, > > > > I have Stanly Matcher, Linda Cocchiarella and Gary Stewart. I need as much > of the internal gastro issue to be found to be industrial as possible since > the psyche AME left the apportionment question 20% of psyche due to internal > from work injury meds if internal qme finds industrial. So if internal qme > finds internal gastro issues to be non industrial, I have a problem. > > > > Would appreciate any insight you may have on these internal QME's > > > > by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO > > 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 > > Van Nuys, CA 91401 > > agc@cozzagliolaw.com > > 818-257-8026 > > 818-902-9978 fx > > > > Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law > > CAAA Regular Member > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential > and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be > legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that > any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the > intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received > this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > > > > > ---- end of message ---- _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
This message does not contain any substantive information about linda cocchiarella as a medical evaluator. The message is from attorney Bret Graham sharing a trial brief he filed regarding a procedural dispute about sending scientific articles to a QME. While it involves a QME context generally, it does not mention linda cocchiarella by name or provide any information about her evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, or track record as a QME/AME. The doctor is not referenced in this message at all.
"Bret Graham" Date: July 20, 2026 8:09:00 PM Subject: Re: DEFENSE OBJECTS TO MY SENDING SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES TO QME - WCJ WANTS TRIAL BRIEF Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: applicants trial brief re scientific articles to qme redacted_redacted.pdf (263 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Bret Graham Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thanks to those who helped me out with their great ideas and support. Here is the brief I filed. Hopefully, it will help the community in the future the next time a defense atty pulls this nonsense. Bret Graham, Esq. Nava Graham Montebello 420 N. Montebello Blvd., Ste 301 Montebello, CA 90640 (323) 888-1818 Ph (323) 888-7788 Fax (213) 590-1388 cell
AI Analysis:
This message thread discusses Vigil analysis methodology in med-legal reports and QME evaluator quality in general, but contains no specific mention of linda cocchiarella as a medical evaluator, QME, or AME. The discussion is a general complaint about QME evaluators being 'lazy' in performing Vigil (combined disability) analyses, with no reference to linda cocchiarella by name or implication. The attached documents reference 'shaw' and general regulatory materials, not linda cocchiarella specifically. While the topic (QME report quality) is relevant to the evaluation focus, the doctor being evaluated is not mentioned or discussed in this message.
"Kenneth Martinson" Date: May 09, 2025 8:53:00 AM Subject: Re: Vigil Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: vigil approach.pdf (1489 K) cover letter adls 03-10-2025 shaw (repaired).doc (48 K) cover regulacion 41c 4.pdf (337 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Kenneth Martinson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings agree but i have attached some references -----Original Message----- From: aksesq@gmail.com Sent: May 08, 2025 6:06:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Vigil I really have yet to see a *Vigil* analysis in a med-legal report that I thought was substantial evidence. The analysis in the initial report is cursory. At the deposition, I ask the doctor to provide an inventory of ADLs, assess whether they overlap, and if they do overlap, whether there is an amplifying effect. The doctor then says they need to analyze, re-evaluate the patient, etc., but then I get a supplemental report that is as shallow as the first. And if the two impairments are such that they were evaluated by different QME in different specialties, forget it. At first I thought it was just a learning curve for the doctors, but now I am beginning to think the evaluators are just lazy and unwilling to put the time and effort in to do the analysis correctly. -- Andrew K. Shaffer BORAH & SHAFFER 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd., #230 Cupertino, CA 95014 408-996-8650
AI Analysis:
The message does not mention linda cocchiarella at all. It references a doctor named 'Green' in the context of a Southern CA Occupational Medicine panel, with a note about expecting the defendant to strike him. While this message does touch on panel recommendations and strikes (which would be relevant criteria), it contains zero information about linda cocchiarella in any capacity — as a medical evaluator, treating physician, or otherwise.
I would prefer Green, but I expect defendant to strike him.
AI Analysis:
The message is a request for panel selection advice in Internal Medicine, listing available QME panel doctors including 'LINDA A COCCHIARELLA, MD'. While she appears on a QME panel list (which is technically a medical evaluator context), the message contains zero substantive information about her as a medical evaluator. There is no discussion of her evaluation quality, objectivity, fairness, report quality, disability ratings, or any recommendation to select or strike her from the panel. She is merely listed as one of many panel options. The message provides no actionable QME/AME evaluator intelligence about linda cocchiarella that the Synthesis Analyzer could use to assess her as a good or bad evaluator.
"ron ehrman" Date: September 18, 2024 1:58:00 PM Subject: Imperial Beach Internal Panel Help, Please Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: ron ehrman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Need to request a panel in Internal Medicine. If I use Internal Cardiovascular MMV I get a 3 person panel: OLGA VOROSHILOVSKY , MD RICHARD G FRIEDMAN , MD JERROLD A GLASSMAN , MD of if I use Internal MMM, I get a much bigger selection of options below(multiple appearances means same Dr. listed at multiple addresses). Which should I ask for ???: JOHN E HORTAREAS , DO SABIHA PASHA , MD RAJEEV SAGGAR , MD MUFADDAL Q DAHODWALA , MD SABIHA PASHA , MD LINDA BARKODAR , MD PAUL A JAIN , MD AVI J HETTENA , MD ROBERT NORIEGA JR, MD ABOO NASAR , MD DARIUS A SCHNEIDER , MD STUART B KRAMER , MD DAVID MANSOUR , DO SAMEER GUPTA , MD RAJEEV SAGGAR , MD LINDA HUYNH , DO LINDA HUYNH , DO SAMEER GUPTA , MD ROBERT NORIEGA JR, MD STUART B KRAMER , MD RICHARD G FRIEDMAN , MD PAUL A JAIN , MD DANIEL J BRESSLER , MD MUFADDAL Q DAHODWALA , MD RISHI TALWAR , MD ABOO NASAR , MD LINDA A COCCHIARELLA , MD LINDA A COCCHIARELLA , MD RAJEEV SAGGAR , MD RISHI PATEL , SABIHA PASHA , MD PAUL A JAIN , MD TYIA for all suggestions. rpe la
AI Analysis:
The message contains no substantive content about Linda Cocchiarella as a medical evaluator. While the subject line references 'NOR CAL INTERNAL AME'S' which is relevant to the evaluation context, the message body is essentially empty — it only shows a forwarded email header from Jim Smolich with no actual text discussing Linda Cocchiarella's QME/AME evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, panel recommendations, or any other medical evaluator criteria. There is insufficient content to determine relevance to her role as a medical evaluator.
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:52 PM, Jim Smolich <Jim@smolichlaw.com> wrote:
AI Analysis:
This message discusses linda cocchiarella's professional credentials (specifically whether she is a certified rheumatologist), not her role as a QME/AME medical evaluator. While credential verification could tangentially relate to evaluator qualifications, the message contains no substantive information about her QME/AME evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, disability ratings, panel recommendations, or any other medical evaluator-specific criteria. The inquiry appears to be about her specialty certification status, which does not constitute QME/AME evaluator performance information.
I looked at her educational background online and I checked with American College of Rheumatology to see if she had been certified as rheumatologist. My assistant also called her office and asked directly if she was a rheumatologist and the assistant answering the phone said No.
AI Analysis:
This message thread does not contain any substantive information about Linda Cocchiarella as a medical evaluator. The conversation is a general discussion about a listserv (SoCalPQME) and references opinions about 'Gary Stewart' and 'Mr. Rondeau,' with no mention of Linda Cocchiarella's QME/AME evaluation quality, report quality, objectivity, or any other evaluator-specific information. Linda Cocchiarella's name does not appear in the message at all — she was likely referenced in a truncated or earlier portion of the thread not included here. There is no actionable QME/AME content about her in this message.
ron ehrman Date: May 23, 2013 4:04:00 PM Subject: Re: RE: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: ron ehrman Search This is the catch 22 that i love and hate about this listserve. at leat 2 different 180 degree opinions on the same practicioner from 2 or more highly skilled, competent attys. thanx at very least Chuck for my laugh or pardon the pun, chuckle of the day(It 's getting harder and harder to find anything to laugh about). ron ehrman los angeles -----Original Message----- From: marksmail@hurtatwork.com Sent: May 23, 2013 2:02:27 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: RE: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Sorry to be late to the party, to disagree with my friend Mr. Rondeau and maybe it's because I've known him for quite some time but with one exception (and it was a crappy case) Gary Stewart has consistently delivered for us. Baker/Long Beach Oops/forgot to sign From: Alexander G. Cozzaglio [mailto:agc@cozzagliolaw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:31 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: [lawnet] Re: SoCalPQME list internal List: lawnet Sent by: Alex Cozzaglio <<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 > Search Thank you for your responses. by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 Van Nuys, CA 91401 agc@cozzagliolaw.com 818-257-8026 818-902-9978 fx Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law CAAA Regular Member The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. From: Charles R. Rondeau [mailto:charlesrondeau@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:13 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re:[lawnet] Re: SoCalPQME list internal List: lawnet Sent by: Charles R. Rondeau <<a href=" http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 " target="_blank"> http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 > Search Alex, with all due respect to Mr. Stein, I totally disagree. The real "wash out", the guaranteed "wash out" doctor on that QME list is Gary Stewart. I have had favorable results with Dr. Majcher for years, including recently. Did I always get everything with him? Of course not. But I have had nothing but bad results with Dr. Stewart for the same number of years .. And recently. Dr. Stewart has totally sold out to the carriers and employers and even has gone out of his way to screw over (or at least try to) injured police officers and firefighters on presumptions cases with ridiculous and intellectually dishonest BS. Dr. Cocchiarella has no "track record" yet, so if she ends up being the QME who knows what you'll end up getting. Nevertheless, I can say that she is not "out to get" injured workers like Gary Stewart is. Chuck P.S., if you really want to know what I think about Dr. Stewart, give me a call. Chuck Rondeau -----Original Message----- From: neilstein@roadrunner.com Sent: May 22, 2013 5:56:18 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: SoCalPQME list internal Alexander:stay clear of Macher.He has been completely turned around,and is a wash out doctor. -- Neil M.Stein Attorney At Law 16133 Ventura Blvd,#1200 Encino,California,91436 8189908232 neilstein@roadrunner.com ---- "Alexander G. Cozzaglio" wrote: > CAAALeauges, > > > > I have Stanly Matcher, Linda Cocchiarella and Gary Stewart. I need as much > of the internal gastro issue to be found to be industrial as possible since > the psyche AME left the apportionment question 20% of psyche due to internal > from work injury meds if internal qme finds industrial. So if internal qme > finds internal gastro issues to be non industrial, I have a problem. > > > > Would appreciate any insight you may have on these internal QME's > > > > by: Alexander G. Cozzaglio, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER G. COZZAGLIO > > 6211 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 200 > > Van Nuys, CA 91401 > > agc@cozzagliolaw.com > > 818-257-8026 > > 818-902-9978 fx > > > > Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law > > CAAA Regular Member > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential > and for the intended use of the addressee only; it may also be > legally privileged and/or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that > any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the > intended recipient is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received > this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > > > > > ---- end of message ---- _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
While Dr. Cocchiarella is briefly mentioned in this message, the reference is not in the context of her role as a QME/AME medical evaluator. The mention is a passing reference to her reminding the list that the AMA Guides 5th edition was a consensus-based document without an empirical foundation — this is a general academic/professional observation about the AMA Guides methodology, not about her performance or conduct as a medical evaluator in any specific evaluation. The thread is a legal listserv discussion among attorneys debating the applicability of the AMA Guides 5th vs. 6th editions in workers' comp cases. There is no information about her QME/AME evaluation quality, objectivity, panel recommendations, medical-legal report quality, or disability ratings in a specific case context.
"Richard Mark Baker" Date: September 12, 2013 1:00:00 PM Subject: RE: Re:Re: Frazier-troubing paneldecisionre:heartclaimAMA6thedition Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent by: Mark Baker Search Actually, as Dr Cocchiarella reminded us that the 5 th was a consensus based document w/o an empirical foundation and given Brigham's role in developing the 6tth, I think you nailed it. Baker/Long Beach From: Joe Capurro [mailto:jcapurro@capurrolaw.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:35 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: Re:[lawnet] Re: Frazier-troubing paneldecisionre:heartclaimAMA6thedition List: lawnet Sent by: Joseph V. Capurro Search Spell check failed me again. Thanks Todd. Joe Capurro From: McFarren, Todd [ mailto:tmcfarren@rolmlaw.com ] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:20 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: Re:[lawnet] Re: Frazier-troubing panel decisionre:heartclaimAMA6thedition List: lawnet Sent by: Todd McFarren Search Well Joe, they are imperially based insofar as they spring full blown from the head of Brigham. They are not empirically based because they spring full blown from the head of Brigham. From: Joe Capurro [ mailto:jcapurro@capurrolaw.com ] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:10 AM To: Statewide List Service Subject: RE: Re:[lawnet] Re: Frazier-troubing panel decision re:heartclaimAMA6thedition List: lawnet Sent by: Joseph V. Capurro Search Going to the 6 th edition of the Guides is the equivalent of going to the old work impairment based schedule to assign a % of impairment. We should look at some of the language from the Board decisions prohibiting using the "old" PDRS to determine the impairment #. As you know Chuck the Guides (both the 5 th and 6 th ) are not imperially based, but are consensus based and politically driven. It may be appropriate for a physician to look at the 6th to determine the existence of impairment where it is not covered in the 5 th but I believe the % number must come from somewhere within the 5 th . Joe Capurro From: Charles R. Rondeau [ mailto:charlesrondeau@msn.com ] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:50 PM To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re:[lawnet] Re: Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heartclaimAMA6thedition List: lawnet Sent by: Charles R. Rondeau Search I see this issue very simply (perhaps too simply). The California Labor Code mandates that the 5th Edition of the AMA Guides is to be used to determine permanent impairment. To allow a physician under the guise of providing what he or she believes is a more accurate impairment rating to utilize the 6th Edition violates a specific legislative mandate. Almaraz-Guzman II and the Miltpitas decision stand for the proposition that a physician must stay within the 4 corners of the 5th Edition to provide the most accurate impairment rating. Chuck Rondeau -----Original Message----- From: john@johncbush.com Sent: September 11, 2013 10:13:26 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claimAMA6thedition Well it doesn't even matter, you can't have a statute that changes it's underpinnings according to the whims of an editorial committee. The legislature and the governor would no longer be needed, one review committee said a WPI for this specific condition is 30 % and the next editorial committee says no that's too much it's really 23% but then the good ole doctor by reason of his experience education and research he says he would assign 24 % so then the award would tend to become tied to the changing vote of different educational committees. Or, hit and miss according to the predilections of the particular QME or AME, John Bush Hemet Sent from my iPhone On Sep 11, 2013, at 6:35 PM, William Morris wrote: > > List: lawnet Sent by: William S. Morris Search > > Man, I'm sure I saw it on this website, but I'd have no way of being able to start an investigation for it. I don't remember the state, except it was in the Midwest, and it had to do with trying to get the legislature to adopt the 6th edition for their own workers' compensation. I only remember strong language tantamount to calling him a fraud. Can't help otherwise. Maybe whoever posted the original article will remember what I'm talking about. > wsmorris > Turlock, Ca > From: John C Bush > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:00 PM > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claimAMA6thedition > List: lawnet Sent by: John Bush Search > I would love to read that also. I am sorry I called you William I remember now from years ago you favor Steve. > > John Bush Hemet > > From: Jeffrey Alford > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:29 PM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claimAMA6thedition > > List: lawnet Sent by: Jeff Alford Search > Steve, > > Could you post an article or something revealing the roasting of the 6th ed. by the Midwestern legislature? > > Jeff Alford > Santa Cruz > > > From: William Morris [ mailto:wsmorris@pacbell.net ] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:05 PM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claimAMA6thedition > > List: lawnet Sent by: William S. Morris > Search > > Except Asturias and the Board don't agree with you. > wsmorris > Turlock, Ca > From: reubenglucero > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:25 AM > Subject: Fwd: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claimAMA6thedition > List: lawnet Sent by: Reuben Lucero > Search > My two cents on this issue. Based on the specific reference in the Labor Code to the fifth edition of theAMA guides I believe that although there is mentioned that the doctor can go outside the guides in certain cases, he is bound by the fifth edition. Period. No exception. Reuben Lucero > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone > -------- Original message -------- From: William Morris Date: 09/10/2013 5:48 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Statewide List Service Subject: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claim AMA6thedition > List: lawnet Sent by: William S. Morris > Search > A later post had the case. What you didn't quote is Asturias' contention that the doctor, based upon knowledge and experience, concluded that the 6th edition was new medical research concluding that the 5th edition was inaccurate. The Board adopted Asturias' conclusion. I find it interesting that Asturias used to be an Applicant's attorney in Merced (25 miles south). He and the Board is apparently unfamiliar with the editor of the 6th edition being roasted by a legislature in the Midwest for making unsubstantiated changes to the 5th edition. If the 6th edition disagrees with the 5th edition, the Board has concluded that it is based upon studies that indicate that the 5th edition is inaccurate. Problem being that neither edition was concerned with the accuracy of the impairments for determining work disability in workers' compensation!!! The analysis is therefore pure sophistry. I had to recently abandon a PQME because she stated during deposition that she thought the 5th edition was simply wrong with its determination of disability for back injuries, and that the hernia analysis was more accurate. I wonder if I could have rehabilitated her by referral to the 6th edition?? > wsmorris > Turlock, Ca > From: John C Bush > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 5:12 PM > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claim AMA6thedition > List: lawnet Sent by: John Bush > Search > Thank you, but I believe that is how tortured the Frazier panel is. I was able to cut and paste the offending language that they took from Milpitas in my post of 12:58 p.m. to this lawlist on this date 9-10-2013, but, I think you are probably right anyway, because the Frazier panel appears to be treating the Milpitas case as a sea change so to speak in allowing them to treat the Guides 6 as new science or a new understanding as you say, even though we understand it as only a change in editors. > > That why maybe we might be worried anyway? > > John Bush Hemet > > From: William Morris > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 5:04 PM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claim AMA6thedition > > List: lawnet Sent by: William S. Morris > Search > Sorry, already trashed the case. I can imagine an analysis as you suggest, but I think the justification would have to be intense--like there is nothing in the 5th edition that can be used, or the understanding of medicine has changed. The 6th edition isn't a change in the understanding of medicine, it is merely a change in editors. > wsmorris > Turlock, Ca > From: John C Bush > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:44 AM > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claim AMA6thedition > List: lawnet Sent by: John Bush > Search > Hello William, could you read the WCAB Judge's report and recommendation, second or third page, there is a quote from MIlpitas and see if I analyzed this correctly: it looks like Milpitas was saying once you have exhausted the four corners of the guide in the A-G analysis you can then go to articles, papers and even another edition of the guide (by inference) or at least the Frasier panel thought that is what it was saying? > John Bush Hemet > From: William Morris > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 6:28 PM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claim AMA6thedition > List: lawnet Sent by: William S. Morris > Search > Yes, but the doctor still needs to stay within the four corners of the Guide. The sixth edition is not within the four corners. Further, the basis for straying from a strict AMA impairment is that the impairment does not accurately describe the disability. Therefore, a gait disturbance is not ratable for a knee, but a 3% meniscus impairment does not adequately describe the disability an employee has walking around his work site. > wsmorris > Turlock, Ca > From: Joe Capurro > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 3:24 PM > Subject: RE: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claim AMA6thedition > List: lawnet Sent by: Joseph V. Capurro > Search > The Guzman decision has specific language stating that it would be permissible to go beyond the four corners of the Guides in some circumstances but those circumstances likely are not applicable to the facts in this case. This would be essential to an applicant's appeal of Dr. Ng's position. We can't argue with any degree of consistency that the doctor is free to use his expertise and clinical judgment only where that results in an increase WPI. It is all about developing the evidence with the doctor on the how and why he got to where he got. > Joe Capurro > From: Richard Mark Baker [ mailto:marksmail@hurtatwork.com ] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:54 PM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: RE: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claim AMA6th edition > List: lawnet Sent by: Mark Baker > Search > Unless I'm mistaken AGII permits the physician to digress from a strict application of the Guides only to the extent of the impairments or analogies found within the 4 corners of the book. Doesn't it therefore present a problem to the extent that the 6th Edition is a different book altogether? Isn't the Board's decision therefore inconsistent with AGII as well as the statute? Baker/Long Beach > From: A. Keith Lesar [ mailto:aklesar@comcast.net ] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:02 PM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Frazier-troubing panel decision re: heart claim AMA6th edition > List: lawnet Sent by: A. Keith Lesar > Search > The discussion in today's Lexis Nexis release of the panel decision in Cannon v City of Sacramento casts doubt on the proposition that use of A-G is limited to complex or extraordinary medical conditions. From discussions with Dr. Ng long before A-G, I know that he is of the opinion that the fifth edition over-rates some cardiac conditions. However, it is disturbing that a leap to the Sixth edition, rather than an analogy to something else in the Fifth edition, is seemingly endorsed. > > > > > Keith Lesar > > > Aptos > > > > > On 9/9/2013 10:48 AM, Frank Rankin wrote: > List: lawnet Sent by: Frank Rankin > Search > Recently, there was a troubling panel decision issued in Frazier v CDCR(Dept of Corrections & Rehab.). I've posted a link to the decision below. If it does not appear as a hyperlink, copy and paste it to your browser, it should take you to the Frazier case. Frazier is a peace officer employed by CDCR, who developed hypertensive heart disease(HHD) with left ventricular hypertrophy(LVH). LVH is the most common form of heart damage caused by hypertension. When knowledgeable doctors see that, they will change the diagnosis from hypertension to HHD, or some will use hypertensive cardiovascular disease. As we know from the Muznik case (1975 40 CCC 578, 51 CA3 622), hypertension, by itself, is not considered heart trouble. But if it causes damage to the heart, such as LVH, or possibly an enlarged atrium, it's no just hypertension; it's now heart trouble. The AMA Guides, 5th edition, addresses this condition in Table 4-2 on page 66, on which it states that HHD or hypertensive cardio disease, with LVH, even though asymptomatic, is class 3 (30-49%). The explanation for this is seen in paragraph 4.1a on page 66. The whole person impairment is not given based on symptoms or impact on ADLs, but on the significant increased risk the individual has for serious problems, like stroke, heart attack, kidney failure, and other heart problems. Some QMEs/AMEs, don't agree with a minimum 30% WPI for HHD with LVH. Malcolm McHenry, in Sacramento, generally gives 10% because he does not agree with the AMA Guides. I've heard Jonathan Ng in San Jose is similar. In the Frazier case, a Dr. Ng was the AME, whom I presume is Jonathon Ng. Dr. Ng gave a WPI of 24%, based in large part because apparently what the AMA 6th edition has 23% for for HHD with LVH. I've not seen the 6th edition, but that's what the WCJ seems to indicate in his report and recommendation. According to the WCJ's report, Dr. Ng even put the chart from the AMA 6th edition in his report. The defendant reconned the decision, apparently arguing Dr. Ng gave a 20% WPI, rather than 24%. The reconsideration unit Panel, Sullivan, Caplane, Brass, denied the recon, adopting the WCJ's report, merely stating the WCJ could have given the higher 30% WPI. It would appear the WCAB is going to allow doctors to use the AMA 6th edition, rather than the legislatively mandated 5th edition, simply by incorporating 6th edition language in their reports. It was my impression an Almarez/Guzman issues were only applicable to complex and/or extraordinary medical conditions. Here, the WCAB is allowing it to be applicable solely because a doctor issues an opinion based on the doctor's experience and clinical judgment. Anyone else have a problem with this finding? ---------------------- LINK to Frazier case----------- http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-components-sitefiles/Documents-WCLC+Documents/Edward-Frazier-v-Calif-CDCR-WCAB-CA.pdf _____________________________ Frank Rankin, Sacramento _.___.__ > _.___.__ > > _.___.__ > _.___.__ > _.___.__ > _.___.__ > _.___.__ > _.___.__ > _.___.__ _.___.__ > > _.___.__ > _.___.__ > _.___.__ > > _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__ _.___.__
AI Analysis:
While the subject line references 'QME Linda Cocchiarella' and mentions a deposition decision, the actual message body contains no substantive information about Dr. Cocchiarella as a medical evaluator. The message is purely procedural legal strategy advice from Darin Powell about burden of proof, sending a demand without apportionment, and filing a DOR — none of which conveys any information about the QME's evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, disability ratings, or track record. The doctor's name appears only in the subject line as context; the message itself provides zero evaluator-specific content for the Synthesis Analyzer to use.
I agree with Dane: why go to that effort when it is not your burden to disprove? Send a demand without apportionment and then file a DOR if they do nothing. Darin Powell -- Mitchell & Powell A Professional Law Corp. (Phone) 559.733.9898 / 559.733.5655 (Fax) www.mitchellandpowell.com
AI Analysis:
While this message thread discusses QME/PQME replacement grounds and references evaluation procedures (8 CCR 40), it does not contain substantive information about linda cocchiarella specifically as a medical evaluator. The message discusses general legal grounds for PQME replacement (discrimination, bias, abusive behavior) and advises an attorney to verify whether the evaluator ('she') actually performed the exam as documented. Although the pronoun 'she' could refer to linda cocchiarella, the message contains no explicit mention of her name and no specific assessment of her evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, or track record as a QME/AME. The content is too generic and indirect to constitute relevant evaluator-specific information about linda cocchiarella.
"Lawrence R. Whiting" Date: May 06, 2019 6:15:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: Grounds for PQME Replacement Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Lawrence R. Whiting Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Talk to your client about the exam. Did she actually do everything that she says that she did under penalty of perjury? Did she actually spend the amount of time stated in the report with the applicant? Is the history correct? Discrimination is going to be pretty hard to prove. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie@TCLC.org Sent: May 06, 2019 3:07:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Grounds for PQME Replacement See 8 CCR 40 (a) An evaluator selected from a QME panel shall advise an injured worker prior to or at the time of the actual evaluation of the following: (1) That he or she is entitled to ask the evaluator and the evaluator shall promptly answer questions about any matter concerning the evaluation process in which the QME and the injured worker are involved; (2) That subject to section 41(g), the injured worker may discontinue the evaluation based on good cause. Good cause includes: (A) discriminatory conduct by the evaluator towards the worker based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual preference, (B) abusive, hostile or rude behavior including behavior that clearly demonstrates a bias against injured workers, and (C) instances where the evaluator requests the worker to submit to an unnecessary exam or procedure. (b) When required as a condition of probation by the Administrative Director or his/her licensing authority, the QME shall disclose his/her probationary status. The QME shall be entitled to explain any circumstances surrounding the probation. If at that time, the injured worker declines to proceed with the evaluation, such termination shall be considered by the Administrative Director to have occurred for good cause. (c) If the injured worker declines to ask any questions relating to the evaluation procedure as set forth in section 40(a), and does not otherwise object on the grounds of good cause to the exam proceedings under section 41(a) during the exam itself, the injured worker shall have no right to object to the QME comprehensive medical-legal evaluation based on a violation of this section. If Dr. Linda Cocchiarella did not advise your client in the first place that the injured worker may discontinue the evaluation for abusive, hostile or rude behavior, I don't know what the remedy is. Dr. Linda Cocchiarella DID advise your client at the first exam that the injured worker may discontinue the evaluation for abusive, hostile or rude behavior, and your client stayed, then he made his choice. Per the Reg, if your client gets up and walks out of re-exam for abusive, hostile or rude behavior, then the issue of a new panel goes to WCJ to determine if the PQME's behavior was, in fact, abusive, hostile or rude. This is where strategy comes in. If you tell your client to records the re-exam, Dr. Linda Cocchiarella will be on her best behaviour. If your client wants to make sure he does not have to see Dr. Linda Cocchiarella for a while, he goes to exam, waits until she is rude and abusive, then he gets up and walks out. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA 95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Jeffrey Linnetz, lawnet listserver" To: "Statewide List Service" Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 10:54:43 AM Subject: [lawnet] Grounds for PQME Replacement List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:ricardoagustin@perezlawcorp.com ' Ricardo Perez ] [ mailto:ricardoagustin@perezlawcorp.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Grounds%20for%20PQME%20Replacement ' Reply To Sender ] [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Grounds%20for%20PQME%20Replacement ' Reply To List ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search ' Search ] [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings ' Settings ] Hi all, I have an applicant who adamantly refuses to go back to QME Dr. Linda Cocchiarella. He says that she was extremely rude to him, that she was pulling and stretching his limbs, and that wouldn't stop even after he told her to stop because she was hurting him. As it turns out, she gave a very unfavorable report, so there's no way DA is going to agree to an AME or panel replacement. Is this grounds to get a replacement if the Applicant feels he was being mistreated? Thanks, Ricardo AgustÃÂn Pérez
AI Analysis:
While the message does reference 'Lina Cocchiarella' (likely a misspelling of Linda Cocchiarella) in what appears to be a panel context (subject line mentions 'SoCal Internal Panel'), the message contains no substantive QME/AME evaluator information. The inquiry is merely asking if anyone has insight on the doctor — it provides no actual evaluation quality data, panel strike recommendations, objectivity assessments, report quality feedback, or disability rating information. The message is essentially an unanswered question with zero substantive content about the doctor's performance as a medical evaluator. There is nothing for the Synthesis Analyzer to work with.
Jennifer Ryan Date: April 02, 2019 6:07:00 PM Subject: SoCal Internal Panel - Ghomri or Cocciarella? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Jennifer Ryan Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Any insight on Yashar Ghomri or Lina Cocchiarella? Thank you, Jennifer Ryan
AI Analysis:
The message from Keith Gilmetti discusses a 'So Cal ortho panel' and mentions someone being 'very conservative,' which could relate to a medical evaluator context. However, the message does not explicitly mention linda cocchiarella by name, and the pronoun 'he' does not match the female doctor being evaluated. Additionally, there is insufficient substantive QME/AME evaluator information specifically tied to linda cocchiarella to mark this as relevant.
I have formed the opinion that he is very conservative.
AI Analysis:
The message contains only header/metadata information (sender, recipient, date, subject line) with no substantive content about Dr. Cocchiarella's role as a QME/AME medical evaluator. While the subject line 'Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan?' suggests a comparison that could be evaluator-related (possibly a panel choice or strike decision), the actual body content of the message is absent. There is no substantive information about evaluation quality, objectivity, report quality, disability ratings, or any other QME/AME-specific criteria to assess. Cannot mark as relevant based solely on a subject line without supporting content.
From: Christel A. Schoenfelder (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] Dr. Cocchiarella or Dr. Iftikhar Khan?