None

"Nooshin Dalili" Date: January 19, 2026 3:15:00 PM Subject: Re: Who to Strike Psych - McDonald, Smith or Yanez Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Nooshin Dalili Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I've had one report from Dr. McDonald for a security guard who was assaulted by an assailant and developed PTSD. He provided a GAF of 59 /17% WPI, which was Okay, and he was supportive of ongoing treatment. I would not strike him. Nooshin Dalili SJO -----Original Message----- From: sellnout@yahoo.com Sent: January 16, 2026 1:03:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Who to Strike Psych - McDonald, Smith or Yanez Who to strike for client with failed back and need for therapy as consequence of industrial injury. Bobbie L McDonald Psy. DMeredith B Smith Ph.D.Muriel Yanez, Psy.D Steve FosterSiles & Foster, P.C.Chico, CA

Who to strike for client with failed back and need for therapy as consequence of industrial injury.

"Nooshin Dalili" Date: January 15, 2026 1:38:00 PM Subject: Re: Anything new on Kelsi Smith or Michael Rosson, DC? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Nooshin Dalili Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Update on Dr. Kelsi Smith, DC: I received a final report from her. She provided reasonable/Ok permanent disability ratings for the lumbar and cervical spine based on DRE, and for the shoulders based on range of motion. The report does not include a pain rating or any discussion of Kite. Apportionment was 100% industrial and she was very generous on future medical. Overall, it is a reasonable report, though it could have been stronger. Based on this experience, I would not strike her, but she would not necessarily be my first choice. Nooshin Dalili SJO -----Original Message----- From: nooshin@dalililaw.com Sent: February 22, 2024 6:50:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Anything new on Kelsi Smith or Michael Rosson, DC? Hi all, I have a panel with 2 unknown DC QMEs, Dr. Smith and Dr. Rosson. According to prior posts, they were both unknown as of few months ago. Has anyone received a report from them in the last few months? Any updates on the prior comments? Thank you, Nooshin Dalili SJO

"Phil McGuire" Date: November 14, 2025 2:06:00 PM Subject: Need copy of a case Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Phil McGuire Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Can someone please send me a copy of Smith v. San Juan Unified School District (2013) 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 398.

"Brett A. Borah" Date: November 14, 2025 1:22:00 PM Subject: Re: San Jose chiro panel - Kelsi Smith- Nicolas Borovsky or Dana Robinson Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Brett A. Borah Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings All unknown to me. Mad Dog On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 11:15:41 AM PST, Joann Attard-Helvig (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Joann Attard-Helvig Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi listmates, I received this Chiro panel of largely Unknown's. Someone had mentioned that Kelsi Smith gave them two good initial reports, but I don't see any mention of final reports. Does anyone have any experience with these doctors? Did anyone receive a final report from Dr. Smith yet? Thank you! Joanne Helvig

"Kenneth Martinson" Date: October 17, 2025 11:52:00 AM Subject: Re: Neuro Psych AME.: RANDALL SMITH, LARRY WORNIAN Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kenneth Martinson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Larry J. Wornian, PhD                        7567 Amador Valley Blvd., Ste. 202     Dublin, CA  94566 ABOGADO GOMEZ Compensacion al Trabajador Workers Compensation Kenneth Martinson San Bruno 👉Mail: 1212 El Camino Real, #H103 San Bruno, CA. 94066  - Effect 09/15/2025 Phone/telefono:  (408) 375 - 8135 Fax: (408) 409 - 2536 Email: kennethmesq@msn.com KENNETH MARTINSON SAN BRUNO 4453784 The California Constitution declares that Workers' Compensation shall accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character. �

Thanks Hollie.  Phil McGuire.

Thank you Bob.  Phil McGuire.

From: Phil McGuire (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 12:05 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Need copy of a case

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: October 07, 2025 1:35:00 PM Subject: Re: Employer not accommodating or paying TD Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: 132a-conflicts in work status reports, singled out alnimri 2019.pdf (1079 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Joe, This is a 132a situation. See the Alnimri attached. This is a case where the IW had been working as a ramp agent full-duty, PTP released him to full-duty, but PQME said he had a restriction from very heavy lifting. Appeals Board found 132a discrimination. See also the Franco summary. 132a-PTP and AME conflict-ER says business necessity 2020 ■ Oscar Franco v. MV Transportation, Inc., 2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 120 [also to be reported in the July issue of Cal. Comp. Cases] Discrimination—Labor Code § 132a—WCAB rescinded WCJ’s finding that employer did not violate Labor Code § 132a by discharging applicant from his position as bus driver for four months without pay pending clarification from agreed medical examiner regarding applicant’s work restrictions, notwithstanding that applicant had already been released to work by his treating physician and had been working full duty for four months , and WCAB remanded matter for further development of record, when WCAB found evidentiary record lacking with respect to whether applicant could establish prima facie case for discrimination and whether defendant could defeat claim; although WCAB did not decide whether there was Labor Code § 132a violation due to deficient record, WCAB, interpreting Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Rehabilitation v. W.C.A.B. (Lauher) (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 1281, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 70 P.3d 1076, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831, concluded that injured worker is not required, in every case, to prove that he or she was “singled out for disadvantageous treatment” to establish prima facie case for discrimination, that more broadly interpreted, Lauher requires employee to show that, based on specific factual scenario underlying his or her discrimination claim, he or she was subject to “disadvantages not visited on other employees” because of injury , that although applicant here was ostensibly treated same as non-industrially injured workers with respect to his work release, employer’s apparent lack of policy with regard to handling medical-legal reports that conflict with opinion of treating physician that releases employee to work could be found to adversely affect industrially-injured workers in way that does not equally affect non-industrially-injured workers (who would presumably remain on job once released to work after injury or illness), thereby subjecting applicant to disadvantages not visited upon other employees because of his injury, and that if, on remand, applicant establishes prima facie case of Labor Code § 132a violation by showing he suffered such disadvantages, employer retains right to defeat applicant’s discrimination claim by showing that employer acted out of business necessity . But ... 132a-IW laid off pending AME, PTP RRTW FD Franco 2018 ■ Oscar Franco v. MV Transportation, Inc., 2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 120 [also to be reported in the July issue of Cal. Comp. Cases] Discrimination—Labor Code § 132a—WCAB rescinded WCJ’s finding that employer did not violate Labor Code § 132a by discharging applicant from his position as bus driver for four months without pay pending clarification from agreed medical examiner regarding applicant’s work restrictions, notwithstanding that applicant had already been released to work by his treating physician and had been working full duty for four months, and WCAB remanded matter for further development of record, when WCAB found evidentiary record lacking with respect to whether applicant could establish prima facie case for discrimination and whether defendant could defeat claim; although WCAB did not decide whether there was Labor Code § 132a violation due to deficient record, WCAB, interpreting Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Rehabilitation v. W.C.A.B. (Lauher) (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 1281, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 70 P.3d 1076, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831, concluded that injured worker is not required, in every case, to prove that he or she was “singled out for disadvantageous treatment” to establish prima facie case for discrimination, that more broadly interpreted, Lauher requires employee to show that, based on specific factual scenario underlying his or her discrimination claim, he or she was subject to “disadvantages not visited on other employees” because of injury, that although applicant here was ostensibly treated same as non-industrially injured workers with respect to his work release, employer’s apparent lack of policy with regard to handling medical-legal reports that conflict with opinion of treating physician that releases employee to work could be found to adversely affect industrially-injured workers in way that does not equally affect non-industrially-injured workers (who would presumably remain on job once released to work after injury or illness), thereby subjecting applicant to disadvantages not visited upon other employees because of his injury, and that if, on remand, applicant establishes prima facie case of Labor Code § 132a violation by showing he suffered such disadvantages, employer retains right to defeat applicant’s discrimination claim by showing that employer acted out of business necessity. [See generally Hanna, Cal. Law of Emp. Inj. and Workers’ Comp. 2d § 10.11[1]-[3]; Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law, Ch. 11, § 11.27[1], [6][a].] California : Panel Clarifies Lauher Standard for a Prima Facie Claim of Unlawful Discrimination Ever since the Supreme Court decision in Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lauher) (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 1281 [68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831] many practitioners have grappled with the meaning of the phrase, “singled out for disadvantageous treatment because of the industrial nature of the injury,” in the context of a claim of unlawful discrimination under Labor Code section 132a . That phrase, says a unanimous panel, is simply an application of the standard adopted by Lauher . (See, Franco v. MV Transportation, Inc. (April 12, 2019) 2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 120 ). Lauhe r held that to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination under Labor Code section 132a, the injured worker must first show that they suffered some adverse result as a consequence of some action or inaction by the employer that was triggered by the industrial injury, and second, that they had a legal right to receive or retain the deprived benefit or status and the employer had a corresponding legal duty to provide or refrain from taking away that benefit or status. That is, the injured employee must show they were subjected to disadvantages not visited on other employees because of their industrial injury. ( Lauher, supra, at p. 1301.) The Franco panel’s review of the underlying facts in Lauher provides relevant context and illuminates why the import of the phrase, “singled out for disadvantageous treatment because of the industrial nature of the injury,” has been so misunderstood. Briefly, Lauher sustained an industrial injury, received temporary disability indemnity, and was later found to be permanent and stationary with residual impairment. Lauher returned to work. His workers’ compensation claim was resolved by a Stipulated Award that provided for permanent disability indemnity and further medical treatment. Lauher obtained medical treatment under the award, but he missed time from work to obtain that treatment, for which his employer required him to use sick leave or vacation time. Lauher claimed entitlement to temporary disability indemnity (TDI) for the time he spent attending those medical appointments. When his employer denied the claim, Lauher filed a petition arguing that his employer’s refusal to compensate him with TDI and to reimburse him for the use of sick leave and/or vacation time was discriminatory and a violation of Labor Code section 132a. In rejecting Lauher’s 132a claim, the court explained that while Lauher did show detriment in having to use accumulated sick leave and vacation time to receive medical treatment for his industrial injury, he simply was not entitled to TDI because his condition had become permanent and stationary. And because Lauher had no legal entitlement to TDI, he was treated in the same way as non-industrially injured workers who also were required to use sick and vacation leave for medical treatment and time off due to a disability. In actuality then, Lauher was on the same legal footing as non-industrially injured employees, and because he could not demonstrate a legal entitlement to TDI, the Court commented that Lauher failed to show that “the employer had singled him out for disadvantageous treatment” because of his industrial injury. That comment, says the Franco panel, is an application of the broader standard adopted by Lauher . In Franco, the injured worker claimed discrimination when he was discharged from his position as a bus driver for a period of four months without pay, pending a clarification from the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) as to his ability to work even though he had been released by his treating physician to full duty and had been on the job for several months. Prior to returning to his job, Franco underwent an employer-required physical and retraining. He was able to perform his job duties without any problems. Several months after Franco’s return to work, the AME, whom Franco had not seen in over a year, issued a report in which he opined that Franco could not return to his usual and customary job as a bus driver. Based on that report, Franco’s employer placed him off work. Franco was not allowed to work for a period of four months and did not receive any pay during that four-month period. Franco’s claim of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a was tried, and the WCJ found that although the employer’s action in not allowing Franco to continue to work for four months was detrimental to Franco and was related to his industrial claim, Franco failed to demonstrate that his employer singled him out for disadvantageous treatment because of his industrial injury. Relying in significant part on Gelson’s Markets, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 201 [74 Cal. Comp. Cases 1313], the WCJ rejected Franco’s claim and Franco sought reconsideration. (Note: The Franco panel notes that Gelson’s is distinguishable from Franco in significant ways. (Fn. 11.) In Gelson, the injured worker was seeking to return to work, whereas Franco had been returned to his job as a bus driver for four months prior to being placed off work.) In its Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration, the panel states its view that the Lauher phrase, “singled out for disadvantageous treatment,” is simply an application of the broader standard adopted by the court. The panel’s application of the Lauher standard to Franco’s claim, however, was frustrated by numerous inadequacies in the evidentiary record that made it impossible to compare the way in which Franco was treated as compared to a non-industrially injured employee. For example, the record was unclear on whether Franco’s employer had any policy with respect to how industrially injured employees were treated if there was an AME report or other evidence that conflicted with a treating physician’s opinion concerning an employee’s ability to remain on the job. Importantly, the panel observed that the employer’s apparent lack of such a policy could be found to adversely affect industrially injured workers as a class in a way that does not equally affect non-industrially injured employees. Thus, it could be found that Franco was subject to disadvantages not visited on other employees because of his industrial injury. The panel rescinded the WCJ’s decision and returned the case to the trial level with specific guidance as to the multiple issues requiring further development. Although the panel’s decision did not resolve Franco’s claim of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a, it is noteworthy because it sets the record straight that an injured worker may make a prima facie showing of unlawful discrimination even where they cannot demonstrate a singling out for disadvantageous treatment, so long as they show some adverse result as a consequence of some action or inaction by the employer that was triggered by the industrial injury, and that they had a legal right to receive or retain the deprived benefit or status and the employer had a corresponding legal duty to provide or refrain from taking away that benefit or status. In other words, the injured worker must show they were subject to disadvantages not visited on other employees because of the industrial injury. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11:14:24 AM Subject: [lawnet] Employer not accommodating or paying TD List: lawnet Sent By: Joe Schlah Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello, I have a situation where my client was working modified work. The PTP then issued a report with no restrictions and the QME issued a report the same month providing restrictions. The employer is not taking Applicant back because they need clarification regarding the inconsistent restrictions and are not paying TD either. Can I force defendant to either accommodate or pay TD? They left my client hanging with no income. Any help is appreciated.

13025 Danielson Street, Suite 260

"Joseph Pluta" Date: July 02, 2025 11:20:00 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Panelist Jeffrey F. Ballard Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Joseph Pluta Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I just received my first MMI report from Jeffrey Ballard this week. It is not good. I found his opinions on impairment to be stingy and unfounded. But, the worst part of the report was apportionment where he opined 90% nonindustrial, 10% industrial for all body parts. My opinion is based on a sample size of one but he seemed all too eager to apportion pathology away from industrial causation. I'd strike him so long as there is no one else who is truly awful. Joe Pluta Bakersfield . . . -----Original Message----- From: kbgilmetti@gmail.com Sent: February 05, 2025 5:29:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Fwd: Panelist Jeffrey F. Ballard Does anyone know anything about Dr. Jeffrey F. Ballard? Begin forwarded message: > From: Keith Gilmetti <kbgilmetti@gmail.com> > Date: February 4, 2025 at 11:21:34 AM PST > To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> > Subject: Panelist Jeffrey F. Ballard > >  > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Keith Gilmetti <kbgilmetti@gmail.com> >> Date: February 4, 2025 at 10:37:31 AM PST >> To: CAAA Lawnet <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> >> Subject: Panelist Jeffrey F. Ballard >> >> I received a panel with Jeffrey Ballard, Michael D Smith, and Charles Sadler. >> I am familiar with Dr. Smith and Dr. Sadler. >> Lawnet is devoid of information with regard to orthopedic surgeon Jeffrey F Ballard despite the fact that he has been in practice for 29 years. >> Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Keith B. Gilmetti >> Law Office of >> Keith B. Gilmetti >> 3434 Truxtun Ave., >> Suite 210 >> Bakersfield, CA 93301 >> (661)324-8787 >>

From: Mark Sherry (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 10:31:30 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Cc: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] Who to Strik

From: Steven Scardino (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 7:46:49 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Cc: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] Who to Strik

"M. Hollie Rutkowski" Date: June 03, 2025 11:05:00 AM Subject: Re: work restrictions Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: 132a-disadvantages not visited on other e'ees-franco 2019.pdf (1473 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Actually,  I do have the Franco case. It is attached. Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. The Compensation Law Center Sacramento, CA   95834 T:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428 From: "Matthew Verduzco, lawnet listserver" <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: "Statewide List Service" <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 2:48:16 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] work restrictions List: lawnet Sent By: Joseph Richards Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings The reason defendant lost is because the workers' comp defense attorney asked the QME about work restrictions, and the WCAB imputed that conduct to the employer.  I don't get it.  With the Nunes decisions now, substantial evidence of work restrictions seems important. JR JOSEPH E. RICHARDS, ESQ. Attorney & Certified Specialist in Workers' Compensation Law State Bar of California, California Board of Legal Specialization LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH RICHARDS, P.C. 📧 Email: jr@jr.law 📞 Tel: (888) 883-6588 Service of Process (EAMS & U.S. Mail): JOSEPH RICHARDS ORANGE P.O. Box 2314, Orange, CA 92859 Office Locations: Orange County: 1122 E Lincoln Ave, STE 130, Orange, CA 92865 Inland Empire: 1101 California Ave, STE 120, Corona, CA 92881 Electronic Service Consent: Email: service@jr.law or FAX: (833) 562-2667 with Proof of Service of Specified Electronic Documents. Note: We DO NOT consent to e-service via other email addresses, fax, or third-party download links. Confidentiality: This email and/or fax message, along with any attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please stop reading immediately and notify the sender. Unauthorized reading, distribution, or copying of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. An attorney-client relationship is not established without a signed written agreement. NOTICE: Making a false or fraudulent workers' compensation claim is a felony subject to up to 5 years in prison or a fine up to $50,000, or double the value of the fraud, whichever is greater, or by both imprisonment and fine. From: Scott Silberman (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Date: Mon, 06/02/2025 02:27 PM Subject: Re: [lawnet] work restrictions To: lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org List: lawnet Sent By: Scott Silberman Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings For purposes of 132a we have won on these. The basis being if someone is injured outside of work, do you send them to a QME or do you rely on their primary doctor.    I attached a decision on this PTP v QME issue.  there is another case Franco v. MV Transportation, Inc., 2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 120, that also addresses this issue. Scott D. Silberman Certified Specialist, Workers’ Compensation, California Board of Legal Specialization California Board of Legal Specialization Working Group, Workers Compensation California Lawyers Association, Executive Committee Member Advisory Commissioner, Workers’ Compensation Advisory Commission to the State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization (2015-2019) PHONE: (714) 453-6500 CENTRAL FAX: (714) 453-650 1 Central Mailing Address: 1119 N Bush St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Please note we accept electronic service of Legal Documents to the following email only: eams@silbermanlam.com (Please, if you are a client, do not use the eams email address.) This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or private information. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity designated above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the message and any attachments. Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this message or any attachments by an individual or entity other than the intended recipient is prohibited. From: David P. Bonemeyer (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:40 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] work restrictions List: lawnet Sent By: David P. Bonemeyer Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings QME gives work restrictions + MMI. PTP says return to regular duty work. IW wants to go back to work. Do opinions of PTP prevail? Thanks. David Bonemeyer.  San Jose. �

QME gives work restrictions + MMI.

Tim W. English, Esq. Founding Shareholder Wiesner English, P.C. 1660 Hamilton Ave., STE 206 San Jose, CA 95125 TEL: (408) 889-5598 FAX: (408) 889-1813 tim@weworkinjury.com AVVO Profile ** PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW SUITE NUMBER - 206 ** If you or your family have suffered loss due to a work injury and have a child in or applying for college, please click here to learn about Kids' Chance scholarship opportunities . LEGAL NOTICE: This email contains privileged, confidential information only for the intended recipient. If you received in error, any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email message, contents, or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us by email then destroy any copies you possess. Until and unless an attorney-client agreement has been mutually executed by sender and recipient, no information contained in this email shall constitute legal advice.

Diep Nguyen, Attorney At Law

Thank you Leslie.  Would you kind enough to send me these two cases.

Thank you Leslie.  Would you kind enough to send me these two cases.

Thank you Bob.  Phil McGuire.

Diep Nguyen, Attorney At Law

Let us know how it works out. I would ask the qme to turn the consult into a qme request. I would also file petition for second panels in those specialties. Want me to send you a petition for second panel I use? -- Kenneth D. Martinson-Gomez Abogado Gomez 851 Cherry Ave Ste 27 100 San Bruno, CA  94066 (408) 375 - 8135

On Oct 17, 2025, at 9:51 AM, Kenneth Martinson (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:

"Kenneth Martinson" Date: October 17, 2025 8:31:00 AM Subject: Re: Neuro Psych AME.: RANDALL SMITH, LARRY WORNIAN Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kenneth Martinson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Oakland Larry Wornian, Ph.D. Phone: 925-833-3603 ABOGADO GOMEZ Compensacion al Trabajador Workers Compensation Kenneth Martinson San Bruno 👉Mail: 1212 El Camino Real, #H103 San Bruno, CA. 94066  - Effect 09/15/2025 Phone/telefono:  (408) 375 - 8135 Fax: (408) 409 - 2536 Email: kennethmesq@msn.com KENNETH MARTINSON SAN BRUNO 4453784 The California Constitution declares that Workers' Compensation shall accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character. �

"Kenneth Martinson" Date: October 17, 2025 8:29:00 AM Subject: Re: Neuro Psych AME.: RANDALL SMITH, LARRY WORNIAN Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kenneth Martinson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Membership level Professional Member First name Larry Last name Wornian Organization Private practice e-Mail LWornian@aol.com Phone 925-833-3603 Zip Code 94611 Degree Ph.D. ABOGADO GOMEZ Compensacion al Trabajador Workers Compensation Kenneth Martinson San Bruno 👉Mail: 1212 El Camino Real, #H103 San Bruno, CA. 94066  - Effect 09/15/2025 Phone/telefono:  (408) 375 - 8135 Fax: (408) 409 - 2536 Email: kennethmesq@msn.com KENNETH MARTINSON SAN BRUNO 4453784 The California Constitution declares that Workers' Compensation shall accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character. �

Diep Nguyen, Attorney At Law

Using Breeze.ca.gov : Board of Psychology Licensing details for: 11591 Name: WORNIAN, LARRY JEFFREY License Type: Psychologist Primary Status: License Renewed & Current Address of Record 2220 MOUNTAIN BLVD SUITE 240 OAKLAND CA 94611 ALAMEDA county It gives no telephone numbers. dp -- Mitchell & Powell A Professional Law Corp. (Phone) 559.733.9898 / 559.733.5655 (Fax) www.mitchellandpowell.com

Diep Nguyen, Attorney At Law

"Kenneth Martinson" Date: October 16, 2025 8:14:00 AM Subject: Re: Neuro Psych AME.: RANDALL SMITH, LARRY WORNIAN Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kenneth Martinson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Sounds like wornian will work if you help find him. I will see if I have a contact. ABOGADO GOMEZ Compensacion al Trabajador Workers Compensation Kenneth Martinson San Bruno 👉Mail: 1212 El Camino Real, #H103 San Bruno, CA. 94066  - Effect 09/15/2025 Phone/telefono:  (408) 375 - 8135 Fax: (408) 409 - 2536 Email: kennethmesq@msn.com KENNETH MARTINSON SAN BRUNO 4453784 The California Constitution declares that Workers' Compensation shall accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance of any character. �

Maria E. Guevara, Esq.

Maria E. Guevara, Esq.

"Kathleen Castro" Date: September 18, 2025 2:26:00 PM Subject: DEF pulled panel with a Delay letter on a hand injury claim for Ortho Surgery Not Hand Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kathleen Castro Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hello All, We received a panel on a case that has a delay letter, injury to right hand, wrist and pain into the forearm. DEF pulled the panel in Ortho Surgery NOT HAND without any prior designation of specialty or opportunity to object to the specialty. Do you send a letter to the Medical Unit objecting to the specialty and file a DOR to have it addressed by the WCAB? The panel has Joseph Hohl, Carl Smith and Chris Pallia. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Juarez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANDRA H. CASTRO, INC. 3200 Inland Empire Blvd, Suite 265 Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 989-2700 (phone) (909) 989-2733 (fax) Service of all case related documents, discovery and notices may only be served by regular First Class Mail at the above address, or by email to: SERVICE@lawservicesonline.com. Service by any other method will be deemed invalid. Other email addresses at this firm may be used for communication but may not be used for service of any case related document, discovery or notice. Courtesy copies should be provided to: castro@lawservicesonline.com and kathleen@lawservicesonline.com. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission has been sent by a law firm. It may contain information that is confidential, privileged, proprietary, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. Any settlement discussions are considered confidential and not discoverable. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message, any part of it, or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please delete this message and any attachments from your system without reading the content and notify the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no intent on the part of the sender to waive any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this communication. Thank you for your cooperation. For prospective clients, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not established unless and until a retainer agreement has been executed between both parties.

13025 Danielson Street, Suite 260

"Bonnie Wilson" Date: August 08, 2025 5:29:00 PM Subject: Re: Unauthorized photo on screen DL & Immigration Questions Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bonnie Binder-Wilson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I do not understand why the defense position is to “verify your client is John Doe.”  The client takes and oath to state their name.  If they are not John Doe or Sally Smith and the defense later can prove it, then you have a client who is subject to perjury. I have never seen a judge ask a client or witness to hand over an ID.  They accept the person’s testimony that they are who they say they are. I don’t ever give up my client’s identity.  The defense attorney probably has an ID photo from the employer. 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: Greggory Field (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 9:06 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Unauthorized photo on screen DL & Immigration Questions List: lawnet Sent By: Greggory Field Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I stopped a depo two days ago. At the outset I told him there will be no immigration citizenship questions which applies to all client depos. For ID, Defense insisted he wanted a copy of my client's DL. I objected. Told him he could see it on screen and off record note the info but may not have a copy and not on record. He admitted in further argument that he took a picture of it anyway. He refused to delete it and upon further demand to delete, ignored me and asked about legal residency. I stopped the depo, filed a DOR along with motion for protective order and sanctions. In my email follow up documenting what went on, I copied one of the partners. (who is looking into it). Anyone dealt with this? Anything else I should be doing?

I got this chiro panel.  Hickey and Curran are mixed review.  Anyone has any experience with Dr. Barry Smith ?

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

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

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

On Jun 27, 2025, at 10:26 AM, Alan Snitzer (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:

"Steve Scardino" Date: June 27, 2025 9:47:00 AM Subject: Re: Who to Strik Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Steven Scardino Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Clive is not quite as much fun as he used to be although he’s pretty damn good. Steve Scardino, Partner Mail to: Gordon, Edelstein, et al. 3250 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200 LA CA 90010 On Jun 26, 2025, at 4:04 PM, Graham Thomas (lawnet listserver) wrote:  List: lawnet Sent By: Graham Thomas Reply To Sender Reply To List Search< http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Settings< http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > Mates, I have an inexplicably denied trip and fall case (the fall was witnessed) for my client a teacher's assistant. She took steps backwards, tripped over a rock falling backwards, turning her left side to try and brace her fall. 1.) Clive M Segil, MD 2.) Rojeh Melikian, MD 3.) Michael D Smith, MD Segil from the archives seems favorable but potentially a loose canon. Melikian seems to be the consensus strike. Others said they were familiar with Smith but I don't know if that means good or bad. Thanks for your input! Service of documents by electronic mail per WCAB Rule 10625 to this email address is not authorized, accepted or binding upon Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein, LLP, or its clients.