AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses ANDREW PEDTKE as a medical evaluator, specifically mentioning an MMI (Maximum Medical Improvement) report he produced with criticism of his WPI (Whole Person Impairment) rating being 'unreasonably very low' and apportionment being 'inexplicably high without much explanation.' This is clear QME/AME evaluation quality feedback, not treatment-related content.
"David Nitka" Date: August 22, 2025 12:19:00 PM Subject: Re: Stockton Ortho PQMEs - Wood, Natsuhara, Pedtke Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: David Nitka Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings FWIW Sullivan's office has been striking Kyle Natsuhara over other generic names. -----Original Message----- From: jesse.melendrez@melendrezlaw.com Sent: June 17, 2025 1:21:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Stockton Ortho PQMEs - Wood, Natsuhara, Pedtke For listserve's benefit: We got an MMI report from Dr. Andrew Pedtke. The WPI was unreasonably very low and the Apportionment inexplicably high without much explanation. Jesse Melendrez, Esq. 4695 MacArthur Court 11th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-328-7600 Jesse.Melendrez@MelendrezLaw.com -- DISCLAIMER: This message originates from the Law Office of Jesse Melendrez. This message and any accompanying documents may contain information of a privileged or confidential nature, intended to be read only by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the individual to whom this is addressed, you are hereby notified that any retention, distribution, copying or use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify the sender and permanently delete all copies from your system immediately. Further, this message may not be copied or distributed without this disclaimer.
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses Dr. Andrew Pedtke's performance as a medical evaluator, specifically critiquing his MMI (Maximum Medical Improvement) report with concerns about unreasonably low WPI (Whole Person Impairment) rating and inexplicably high apportionment without adequate explanation. This is core QME/AME evaluation quality feedback.
For listserve's benefit: We got an MMI report from Dr. Andrew Pedtke. The WPI was unreasonably very low and the Apportionment inexplicably high without much explanation. Jesse Melendrez, Esq. 4695 MacArthur Court 11th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-328-7600 Jesse.Melendrez@MelendrezLaw.com -- DISCLAIMER: This message originates from the Law Office of Jesse Melendrez. This message and any accompanying documents may contain information of a privileged or confidential nature, intended to be read only by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the individual to whom this is addressed, you are hereby notified that any retention, distribution, copying or use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify the sender and permanently delete all copies from your system immediately. Further, this message may not be copied or distributed without this disclaimer.
AI Analysis:
Message specifically asks for advice on QME panel selections, including whether to strike or keep Andrew Pedtke. This directly relates to his role as a medical evaluator (QME) and seeks input on his suitability for panel evaluations, which is core QME/AME evaluator information.
Brett Sherry Date: August 22, 2023 6:28:00 PM Subject: Stockton Ortho PQMEs - Wood, Natsuhara, Pedtke Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Brett Sherry Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Any advice on who to strike/keep between the following docs? Kirkham Wood Kyle Natsuhara Andrew Pedtke TIA. - Brett Sherry, Los Angeles
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Andrew Pedtke in medical evaluator context - attorney has him 'on two cases' and evaluates his 'reports' as 'conservative, but not divorced from reality.' This is clearly QME/AME evaluation work, not treatment. The panel selection discussion and report quality assessment are core medical evaluator considerations.
Langley Schwartzapfel Date: February 08, 2023 4:30:00 PM Subject: Re: Who to pick Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Langley Schwartzapfel Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have Pedtke on two cases, and his reports have been conservative, but not divorced from reality. Langley Schwartzapfel Watsonville -----Original Message----- From: bonnie@doubleulaw.com Sent: February 08, 2023 3:47:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Who to pick I have the following on a panel: Mark Hellner Andrew Pedtke Guenther Knoblich I know Hellner lives up to his name. Nothing on Knoblich. Pedke sounds bad. Who is worse, Hellner or Pedtke? Bonnie Binder Wilson, Esq. Wilson & Wisler, LLP Attorneys at Law 21 Maple Street Salinas, California 93901 Telephone: (831) 269-3787 Facsimile: (831) 269-3783 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.doubleulaw.com&c=E,1,MKWOZta3oCih9YtZWYjFUrRv9y4v79R4Lb2hwrw01mScsR5X6UudbveMJQnMB9PUBGZ2Fv6AM--rUMlebl1xk4jlkOBg356I5T5vKSSGls9v_HgUeqdyW63l&typo=1 *************** 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.
AI Analysis:
Message discusses ANDREW C PEDTKE's performance as a medical evaluator, specifically mentioning he gave a 1% WPI (Whole Person Impairment) rating for a shoulder injury case. This directly relates to his disability/injury assessment capabilities as a QME/AME, which is core medical evaluator function.
Langley Schwartzapfel Date: December 13, 2022 2:57:00 PM Subject: Who is Worse, Knoblich or Pedtke? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Langley Schwartzapfel Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Don't know Knoblich. Pedtke just wiped our a client of mine with a shoulder injury. Gave him a 1% WPI. Langley Schwartzapfel Watsonville
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses ANDREW C PEDTKE (spelled 'Pedke') as a QME in panel evaluation context. Contains specific feedback about his QME report quality ('very very unhelpful'), examination conduct (asking patient about 'taking advantage of the system'), and his approach to CT (cumulative trauma) cases. This is clearly medical evaluator performance assessment, not treatment-related content.
Craig Morrison Date: August 29, 2022 12:02:00 PM Subject: RE: QME Choice: Pompan or Pedtke? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Last report I received from Pedke was on letterhead from that well known outfit out of Fresno. It was an ortho Panel. The report was very very unhelpful and I have his depo scheduled………………….. My client tells me that during the exam, Pedke asked him why he (my client) is tyring to “take advantage” of “the system”. It was a CT case for a long time construction worker…………….. Maybe Pedke does not believe in CT injuries. Will report back after his depo………… Craig W. Morrison, Esq. (S.F.) From: Vic R. Redula (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:52 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] QME Choice: Pompan or Pedtke? List: lawnet Sent By: Vic R. Redula Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I do not know Pedtke. But I recently received a report from Pompan which was reasonable. Good luck! Vic R. Redula, esq. On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 09:49:26 AM PDT, Langley Schwartzapfel (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Langley Schwartzapfel Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings IW is a 50 year-old, white, Dental Hygienist with shoulder, hand, neck, and low back CT injury. Claim is on delay. Injury AOE/COE is immediate issue. Pompan and Pedtke are the two potential QME's left after Def't struck Butcher. Who is the better choice as PQME? Langley Schwartzapfel Watsonville
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses Andrew Pedtke in QME/AME context - attorney asking about panel strikes and receiving recommendation to 'avoid him' as evaluator, indicating poor QME performance
Sally Horna Date: July 15, 2021 3:43:00 PM Subject: RE: North Cal Panel: Andrew Pedtke, Joseph Centeno, Michael Oechsel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Sally Horna Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dr. Pedtke has been pretty bad in my experience. I would avoid him. Sally A. Horna Attorney at Law Timmons, Tichy, Phenix & Jansen, Inc. 1401 21 st Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 444-0321 Confidentiality Notice : This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Steven A. Meline (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:22 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] North Cal Panel: Andrew Pedtke, Joseph Centeno, Michael Oechsel List: lawnet Sent By: Steven A. Meline Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings There is not much on any of these docs in archives: Andrew Pedtke, Joseph Centeno, Michael Oechsel. Who would you strike? Thank you Mates.
AI Analysis:
Message explicitly discusses 'QME Andrew Pedtke' and evaluates his QME report quality, stating satisfaction with his reporting. This is directly about his performance as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
Esther Oz Date: May 14, 2021 8:44:00 AM Subject: QME Andrew Pedtke Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Esther Oz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Just received QME report for this doctor. Says applicant not P&S and P likely cannot go back to work and long road to recovery. So far, happy with reporting Sent from my iPhone
AI Analysis:
Message explicitly discusses Andrew Pedtke in QME context - attorney received a QME report from him on knees and evaluates the report quality as 'very good for the applicant', which is directly relevant to his performance as a medical evaluator.
Eric Ellison Date: October 30, 2020 10:34:00 AM Subject: Re: Andrew Pedtke any updates? 2nd request Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Eric Ellison Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I just received a QME report from him on knees. The report was very good for the applicant. Eric M. Ellison Managing Attorney Workers’ Compensation Practice Group LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT WARMUTH San Gabriel | Branch Office 801 East Valley Boulevard, Suite 206 San Gabriel, CA 91776 Mailing Address City of Industry | Headquarters 17700 Castleton St., Suite 168 City of Industry, CA 91748 Tel: (626) 282-6868 Fax: (626) 642-0808 Email: eellison@law888.com For more information about our law firm, please visit the website: https://law888.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and might contain information that is attorney/client privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and delete it from your computer. NOTICE: The above statements are provided for general information purposes only and are not intended as legal advice or advice of any sort for a specific case or legal matter. If you do not have a signed attorney-client fee agreement with the Law Offices of Scott Warmuth, APC ("the Firm"), then until such written fee agreement or contract is provided and signed by both a prospective client and attorney for a particular case, neither Mr. Ellison, Mr. Warmuth nor the Firm will represent you nor will they be your attorney in any matter and you remain responsible for retaining your own attorney and for compliance with any and all deadlines and for any statutes of limitations that may apply.Nevertheless, communications with Mr. Ellison by a prospective client on a California legal matter remain confidential and are considered privileged.
AI Analysis:
Message subject line 'Andrew Pedtke as PQME?' directly indicates discussion about ANDREW C PEDTKE in his role as a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), which is a specific type of QME. The question format suggests someone is seeking input about his qualifications or performance as a medical evaluator.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:31 PM Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote:
AI Analysis:
The subject line explicitly mentions 'QME Panel Advice: Andrew Pedtke' which directly indicates this message contains information about Andrew C Pedtke in his role as a QME (Qualified Medical Evaluator). The context of panel advice suggests discussion of his evaluation capabilities or recommendations for/against selecting him from a QME panel.
On May 20, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dikla Dolev (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:
AI Analysis:
Message explicitly asks about ANDREW PEDTKE as 'PQME' (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator), which directly relates to his role as a medical evaluator in the workers' compensation system. The inquiry seeks experience/feedback about his QME performance.
Does anyone has any experience with this ortho doctor as PQME. ?
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses ANDREW C. PEDTKE as PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) with specific evaluator performance feedback - 'had Pedtke as PQME on 3 cases. No wipeouts. He did OK. I would use him again.' This is clear QME evaluation context, not treatment.
"Langley Schwartzapfel" Date: March 06, 2026 12:39:00 PM Subject: Re: Input needed regarding San Francisco orthopedic qualified medical evaluator STEPHEN RAAD STEPHAN, MD and ANDREW C. PEDTKE, MD. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Langley Schwartzapfel Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I've had Pedtke as PQME on 3 cases. No wipeouts. He did OK. I would use him again. Langley Schwartzapfel Watsonville -----Original Message----- From: rosenstein1@earthlink.net Sent: March 06, 2026 11:49:00 AM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Input needed regarding San Francisco orthopedic qualified medical evaluator STEPHEN RAAD STEPHAN, MD and ANDREW C. PEDTKE, MD. All responses and wisdom will be truly appreciated and thank you From, Larry D. Rosenstein Law Offices of Larry D. Rosenstein 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste 905 WT Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel. (310) 478-5445 Fax (310) 378-7175 e-mail: ldrlaw@earthlink.net This message is intended only for the use of the individual to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged/condidential/and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Law Office of Larry D. Rosenstein
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Andrew Pedtke in QME/AME context - attorney asking about panel selection between evaluators, another attorney reporting Pedtke gave 'very nice report and rating' to their client, and discussion of panel strikes/recommendations. This is clearly about medical evaluator performance, not treating physician services.
"Bonnie Binder Wilson" Date: February 08, 2023 4:44:00 PM Subject: Re: Who to pick Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bonnie Binder-Wilson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thank you, 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: Inna Bimits (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 2:15 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] Who to pick List: lawnet Sent By: Inna Bimits Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have seen Pedke once and he gave my client a very nice report and rating but it is a very limited experience. Sincerely, Inna Bimits, Esq. Certified Specialist: Workers Comp Law Offices of John E. Hill Oakland On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 01:47:21 PM PST, Bonnie Binder-Wilson (lawnet listserver) < listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Bonnie Binder-Wilson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have the following on a panel: Mark Hellner Andrew Pedtke Guenther Knoblich I know Hellner lives up to his name. Nothing on Knoblich. Pedke sounds bad. Who is worse, Hellner or Pedtke? 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. I have the following on a panel: Mark Hellner Andrew Pedtke Guenther Knoblich I know Hellner lives up to his name. Nothing on Knoblich. Pedke sounds bad. Who is worse, Hellner or Pedtke? 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.
AI Analysis:
Message discusses ANDREW C PEDTKE's performance as a medical evaluator, specifically mentioning he 'gave my client a very nice report and rating' which directly relates to his QME/AME evaluation work and report quality. The context of providing ratings is specific to medical-legal evaluations, not treatment.
I have seen Pedke once and he gave my client a very nice report and rating but it is a very limited experience.
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Andrew Pedtke in QME panel selection context. Attorney is asking for recommendations between panel doctors for medical evaluation purposes, stating 'Pedke sounds bad' which indicates evaluator reputation/quality assessment relevant to QME selection decisions.
"Bonnie Binder Wilson" Date: February 08, 2023 3:47:00 PM Subject: Who to pick Reply to list Reply to sender Print I have the following on a panel: Mark Hellner Andrew Pedtke Guenther Knoblich I know Hellner lives up to his name. Nothing on Knoblich. Pedke sounds bad. Who is worse, Hellner or Pedtke? 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.
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses ANDREW C PEDTKE as a potential QME (Qualified Medical Evaluator) choice. Attorney is seeking advice on selecting between two QMEs (Pompan or Pedtke) for a workers' compensation evaluation, specifically asking 'Who is the better choice as PQME?' This is clearly about his role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
Langley Schwartzapfel Date: August 29, 2022 11:49:00 AM Subject: QME Choice: Pompan or Pedtke? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Langley Schwartzapfel Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings IW is a 50 year-old, white, Dental Hygienist with shoulder, hand, neck, and low back CT injury. Claim is on delay. Injury AOE/COE is immediate issue. Pompan and Pedtke are the two potential QME's left after Def't struck Butcher. Who is the better choice as PQME? Langley Schwartzapfel Watsonville
AI Analysis:
Message discusses ANDREW C PEDTKE specifically as a QME/AME evaluator. Contains relevant information about: 1) Panel QME context with Pedtke being on a panel with other doctors, 2) QME report quality assessment ('washout report' and evaluation of his performance), 3) Panel strike discussions, 4) Attorney's assessment that 'Pedtke has been ok' as an evaluator with uncertainty about complex cases, 5) Medical-legal report context (not treatment reports). All references are clearly about his role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
Craig Morrison Date: July 06, 2022 3:45:00 PM Subject: RE: NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell & Pedke & Garland Reply to list Reply to sender Print Yup. The report I received from Pedke has the “Fresno” letterhead…………………… Incidentally, I have a Panel QME exam coming up with Glynn (sp?) Garland, MD who also now reports out of the Fresno outfit. Should be interesting because Dr. Garland (out of Sacramento at the time) was one of my “go to” docs back when each side could get their own QMEs (before SB899). His reports were always quite helpful………... /// Craig W. Morrison, Esq. (San Francisco) From: Craig W. Morrison (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 1:00 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Cc: Craig Morrison <craig@morrisonlaw.net> Subject: RE: [lawnet] NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell & Pedke List: lawnet Sent By: Craig W. Morrison Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I actually received (not all that long ago) a washout report from Pedke in a CT case involving a boilermaker with bad shoulders and a bad neck………. If my memory serves me correctly (and sometimes it doesn’t), Pedke’s letterhead on his report was from a well known office out of Fresno……………….. I will be deposing Pedke and let everyone know how it goes……………. Will also double check the Fresno address and correct this email if I was wrong about that………. /// Craig W. Morrison, Esq. (San Francisco) From: Jeremy Smith (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 12:54 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell List: lawnet Sent By: Jeremy Smith Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I also just received a Panel with Blackwell, Pedtke and Bell. Defts struck Blackwell Pedtke has been ok ... Not sure how he would be in a complicated case. Can't see anything recent on Bell. However, on another Panel, a different DA struck Bell (I struck Wellborn, we're going to Jack Akmajian) So maybe I should use that as a guide and strike Pedtke. FWIW, they use the same address in Vallejo. Jeremy Smith Jeremy Smith Attorney at Law 2039 Shattuck Ave., Suite 407 Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510-848-1064 Fax: 888-453-2724 This e-mail message from Jeremy Smith, and all attachments transmitted with it may be privileged or confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking any action based on it is strictly prohibited and may have legal consequences. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and all copies. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew A. Schondel (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 5, 2022 3:14 pm Subject: [lawnet] NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell List: lawnet Sent By: Matthew A. Schondel Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings We have a Panel here with the following Docs. We are familiar with Wellborn, but not the others. Can anyone shed any light on Bell and Blackwell? John Wellborn, MD David Bell, MD Fred Blackwell, MD Thank you. Matthew “Shawn” Schondel, Esq. www.injuredworkerlaw.com PO Box 5378 Santa Rosa, CA. 95402-5378 707-542-5132 Make Racism Wrong Again We have a Panel here with the following Docs. We are familiar with Wellborn, but not the others. Can anyone shed any light on Bell and Blackwell? John Wellborn, MD David Bell, MD Fred Blackwell, MD Thank you. Matthew “Shawn” Schondel, Esq. www.injuredworkerlaw.com PO Box 5378 Santa Rosa, CA. 95402-5378 707-542-5132 Make Racism Wrong Again
AI Analysis:
Message discusses ANDREW C PEDTKE specifically as a medical evaluator in QME/AME context. Contains evaluation of his performance ('Pedke has been ok'), panel strike considerations ('maybe I should use that as a guide and strike Pedtke'), mentions receiving a 'washout report' from him in a workers' compensation case, and discusses his track record in complicated cases. This is clearly about his role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
Craig Morrison Date: July 06, 2022 3:00:00 PM Subject: RE: NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell & Pedke Reply to list Reply to sender Print I actually received (not all that long ago) a washout report from Pedke in a CT case involving a boilermaker with bad shoulders and a bad neck………. If my memory serves me correctly (and sometimes it doesn’t), Pedke’s letterhead on his report was from a well known office out of Fresno……………….. I will be deposing Pedke and let everyone know how it goes……………. Will also double check the Fresno address and correct this email if I was wrong about that………. /// Craig W. Morrison, Esq. (San Francisco) From: Jeremy Smith (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 12:54 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: Re: [lawnet] NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell List: lawnet Sent By: Jeremy Smith Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I also just received a Panel with Blackwell, Pedtke and Bell. Defts struck Blackwell Pedtke has been ok ... Not sure how he would be in a complicated case. Can't see anything recent on Bell. However, on another Panel, a different DA struck Bell (I struck Wellborn, we're going to Jack Akmajian) So maybe I should use that as a guide and strike Pedtke. FWIW, they use the same address in Vallejo. Jeremy Smith Jeremy Smith Attorney at Law 2039 Shattuck Ave., Suite 407 Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510-848-1064 Fax: 888-453-2724 This e-mail message from Jeremy Smith, and all attachments transmitted with it may be privileged or confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking any action based on it is strictly prohibited and may have legal consequences. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and all copies. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew A. Schondel (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 5, 2022 3:14 pm Subject: [lawnet] NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell List: lawnet Sent By: Matthew A. Schondel Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings We have a Panel here with the following Docs. We are familiar with Wellborn, but not the others. Can anyone shed any light on Bell and Blackwell? John Wellborn, MD David Bell, MD Fred Blackwell, MD Thank you. Matthew “Shawn” Schondel, Esq. www.injuredworkerlaw.com PO Box 5378 Santa Rosa, CA. 95402-5378 707-542-5132 Make Racism Wrong Again We have a Panel here with the following Docs. We are familiar with Wellborn, but not the others. Can anyone shed any light on Bell and Blackwell? John Wellborn, MD David Bell, MD Fred Blackwell, MD Thank you. Matthew “Shawn” Schondel, Esq. www.injuredworkerlaw.com PO Box 5378 Santa Rosa, CA. 95402-5378 707-542-5132 Make Racism Wrong Again
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Andrew Pedtke in medical evaluator context - mentions receiving an 'underwhelming report' from Pedtke in a CT case and discusses panel strike decisions. The report quality assessment and panel strike discussion are directly relevant to QME/AME evaluation performance.
Craig Morrison Date: July 14, 2021 4:47:00 PM Subject: RE: North Cal Panel: Andrew Pedtke, Joseph Centeno, Michael Oechsel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Craig W. Morrison Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Just received a very underwhelming report from Pedke in a CT case for a long time boilermaker. Will have to depose him. Will report back. Craig W. Morrison, Esq. From: Steven A. Meline (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:22 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] North Cal Panel: Andrew Pedtke, Joseph Centeno, Michael Oechsel List: lawnet Sent By: Steven A. Meline Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings There is not much on any of these docs in archives: Andrew Pedtke, Joseph Centeno, Michael Oechsel. Who would you strike? Thank you Mates.
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses ANDREW PEDTKE in QME/AME panel context. Sender is asking for panel strike recommendations, which is specifically about medical evaluator selection and performance. The phrase 'Who would you strike?' indicates this is about QME panel selection strategy, making this highly relevant to evaluating Pedtke as a medical evaluator.
"Steven A. Meline" Date: July 14, 2021 4:22:00 PM Subject: North Cal Panel: Andrew Pedtke, Joseph Centeno, Michael Oechsel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Steven A. Meline Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings There is not much on any of these docs in archives: Andrew Pedtke, Joseph Centeno, Michael Oechsel. Who would you strike? Thank you Mates.
AI Analysis:
Message directly discusses ANDREW PEDTKE in QME/AME context - attorney is deciding panel strikes for orthopedic evaluators, mentions reviewing comments about evaluators, and describes Pedtke as 'unknown' in evaluation context. This is clearly about medical evaluator selection/striking decisions.
I am left with these orthos, I reviewed all the comments in lawnet and cannot decide who do I strike and who I keep. Based on what I've seen Seibert is conservative and Pedtke is unknown. Injuries-- neck, back.
AI Analysis:
Message explicitly mentions 'NO CAL ortho QME Andrew Pedtke' - directly referencing Andrew Pedtke as a QME (Qualified Medical Evaluator) in Northern California orthopedics. The urgent nature and 'in hearing right now' context suggests this is about his availability or suitability as a medical evaluator for a legal proceeding.
Law Office Of Craig W . Morrison , A Professional Corporation Mailing Address : PO Box 7775, #87460 San Francisco, CA 94120-7775 Phone: 415-445-9092 Fax : 415-445-9093 www.morrison.law *************** PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL **************** THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION IS A COMMUNICATION FROM THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG W. MORRISON, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION. THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND IS CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG W. MORRISON, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION. THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY THAT IS THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. Thanks
AI Analysis:
Message specifically asks for advice about Dr. Andrew Pedtke in QME context, mentions needing to 'strike one' which refers to panel QME selection process. While no substantive evaluation information is provided, this is clearly seeking QME evaluator feedback.
Robert Johnson Date: December 22, 2020 6:30:00 PM Subject: QME Doctors - Need advice Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Robert Johnson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mates, We have two doctors we need to know about: Dr. Andrew Pedtke and Mark W. Howard, both in Salinas, California. Any experience with these two individuals. Need to strike one. Thank you!!!
AI Analysis:
Message explicitly mentions Dr. Andrew Pedtke in QME context - sender is asking for experience with these doctors and mentions needing to 'strike one', which directly relates to QME panel strikes and medical evaluator selection process.
Robert Johnson Date: December 22, 2020 6:11:00 PM Subject: QME Doctors Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Robert Johnson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mates, We have two doctors we need to know about: Dr. Andrew Pedtke and Mark W. Howard, both in Salinas, California. Any experience with these two individuals. Need to strike one. Thank you!!!
AI Analysis:
Message explicitly mentions Andrew C. Pedtke appearing on a PQME (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) list and requests feedback about him in that capacity. This is directly about his role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
Esther Oz Date: December 15, 2020 9:32:00 AM Subject: Ortho Panel Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: scaaa Sent By: Esther Oz Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings The following doctor’s came up on a PQME list for Salinas, CA. Any feedback? Andrew C. Pedtke, M.D. Leo R Van Dolson, M.D. Bruce R. Huffer, M.D.
AI Analysis:
Message directly asks for panel recommendations about Andrew Pedtke in QME context. Sender has struck one doctor and is seeking advice on choosing between remaining panel options, which is specifically about medical evaluator selection and performance expectations.
Daniel Epperly Date: August 30, 2020 2:22:00 PM Subject: Adam Brooks, MD or Andrew Pedtke Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Daniel Epperly Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a panel where I have struck Dr. Woolfson. The remaining choices are Adam Brooks and Andrew Pedtke. Who should I hope for? Dan Epperly Clovis, CA
AI Analysis:
Message subject line specifically mentions 'QME Panel Advice: Andrew Pedtke' which directly relates to his role as a medical evaluator. The context of seeking panel advice about QME evaluators is clearly about medical-legal evaluation services, not treatment.
On May 20, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dikla Dolev (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:
AI Analysis:
Message specifically asks about ANDREW PEDTKE as 'PQME' (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) and requests experience with this doctor in that evaluator role. While no substantive evaluation information is provided, this is clearly seeking QME/AME-related feedback about the doctor's performance as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
April 16, 2020 7:12:00 PM Subject: RE: ANDREW PEDTKE, MD. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Samuel R. Swift Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Never heard of him Samuel R. Swift San Jose, CA From: Diep Nguyen (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 1:27 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] ANDREW PEDTKE, MD. List: lawnet Sent By: Diep Nguyen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Does anyone has any experience with this ortho doctor as PQME. ? Checked archives does not help. Thank you for all responses. Diep Nguyen Virus-free. www.avast.com
AI Analysis:
Message discusses ANDREW C PEDTKE specifically in QME/AME context - attorney received a medical evaluator panel with Pedtke and is evaluating whether to strike him. Contains direct assessment of Pedtke as evaluator ('Pedtke has been ok') and strategic consideration about his performance in complicated cases, which is relevant QME/AME evaluation information.
Jeremy Smith Date: July 06, 2022 2:54:00 PM Subject: Re: NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: image001.jpg (5 K) List: lawnet Sent By: Jeremy Smith Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I also just received a Panel with Blackwell, Pedtke and Bell. Defts struck Blackwell Pedtke has been ok ... Not sure how he would be in a complicated case. Can't see anything recent on Bell. However, on another Panel, a different DA struck Bell (I struck Wellborn, we're going to Jack Akmajian) So maybe I should use that as a guide and strike Pedtke. FWIW, they use the same address in Vallejo. Jeremy Smith Jeremy Smith Attorney at Law 2039 Shattuck Ave., Suite 407 Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510-848-1064 Fax: 888-453-2724 This e-mail message from Jeremy Smith, and all attachments transmitted with it may be privileged or confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking any action based on it is strictly prohibited and may have legal consequences. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and all copies. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew A. Schondel (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 5, 2022 3:14 pm Subject: [lawnet] NO CA PQME's Bell & Blackwell List: lawnet Sent By: Matthew A. Schondel Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings We have a Panel here with the following Docs. We are familiar with Wellborn, but not the others. Can anyone shed any light on Bell and Blackwell? John Wellborn, MD David Bell, MD Fred Blackwell, MD Thank you. Matthew “Shawn” Schondel, Esq. www.injuredworkerlaw.com PO Box 5378 Santa Rosa, CA. 95402-5378 707-542-5132 Make Racism Wrong Again We have a Panel here with the following Docs. We are familiar with Wellborn, but not the others. Can anyone shed any light on Bell and Blackwell? John Wellborn, MD David Bell, MD Fred Blackwell, MD Thank you. Matthew “Shawn” Schondel, Esq. www.injuredworkerlaw.com PO Box 5378 Santa Rosa, CA. 95402-5378 707-542-5132 Make Racism Wrong Again
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Dr. Pedtke in medical evaluator context - mentions causation findings for back injury, responding to defendant's supplemental report requests, and determining MMI status. The original inquiry was specifically about panel selection between orthopedic evaluators, indicating QME/AME context rather than treatment.
Sandra Rocca Date: March 10, 2021 5:16:00 PM Subject: Re: Andrew Pedtke or Sumner Seibert (Ortho Panel East Bay)? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Sandra Rocca Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I used Dr. Pedtke once. I do not have a P&S report, but he found causation to a back injury as a cumulative trauma. He responded to defendant's supplemental report requests fairly quickly. He also referred him to a physiatrist and encouraged treatment before MMI status. Thanks, Sandy Rocca (Salinas) -----Original Message----- From: inna_bimits@yahoo.com Sent: March 10, 2021 4:13:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Andrew Pedtke or Sumner Seibert (Ortho Panel East Bay)? I am left with these orthos, I reviewed all the comments in lawnet and cannot decide who do I strike and who I keep. Based on what I've seen Seibert is conservative and Pedtke is unknown. Injuries-- neck, back. Inna Bimits Certified Specialist: Workers Comp Law Offices of John E. Hill Oakland
AI Analysis:
Message specifically requests an 'opiate' (opinion) on Andrew Pedtke as a medical evaluator. The sender mentions the listserv discusses him and seeks feedback on his evaluation performance, indicating this is about his QME/AME work rather than treatment. The request for 'a report and an opinion' suggests seeking evaluator-specific feedback.
Dear CAAA does anyone have an opiate on Andrew Pedtke. List serve mentions him but everyone was guessing because he is relatively new. By now someone should have a report and an opinion Thanks Ron Mahurin Point Arena
AI Analysis:
Message specifically seeks opinions about Andrew Pedtke as a medical evaluator, mentioning 'report and an opinion' which indicates QME/AME evaluation context rather than treatment. The request for updates on his evaluation performance from the legal community (CAAA) suggests medical-legal evaluator role.
ron mahurin Date: October 28, 2020 8:55:00 PM Subject: Andrew Pedtke. Any updates? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Ronald Mahurin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Dear CAAA does anyone have an opiate on Andrew Pedtke. List serve mentions him but everyone was guessing because he is relatively new. By now someone should have a report and an opinion Thanks Ron Mahurin Point Arena Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Andrew Pedtke in QME panel context. Attorney drew a panel with three doctors including Pedtke, is researching their track records as evaluators, and notes 'Very little on Pedtke' in archives - indicating search for QME/AME evaluator information. This is clearly about medical evaluator selection/striking decisions, not treatment.
"Timothy J. Egan" Date: July 21, 2020 1:15:00 PM Subject: Panel Hel Alexander Ross, Bruce Huffer, Andrew Pedtke Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Timothy J. Egan Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Drew my third panel with Alexander Ross, Bruce Huffer and Andrew Pedtke. Archives show Huffer as bad, Very little on Pedtke and nothing on Ross that I can find. I can strike Huffer, but what will I end up with? (A dice roll?) Help appreciated. Tim Egan -- Timothy J. Egan, Attorney At Law Certified Specialist in Workers' Compensation Law 30 Fifth Street, Suite 100 Petaluma, CA 94952 Tele: (707) 789-9018 Fax (707) 789-9104 Confidentiality Notice - This message is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, subject to attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine and other privileges. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the original message at once. Please be advised this email shall not be deemed evidence of the formation or existence of any attorney-client relationship between the recipient and this office, notwithstanding any legal opinions or legal counsel contained herein. This email shall not have the effect of establishing an attorney-client relationship unless the content expressly says otherwise. Further, nothing in this communication shall be deemed legal tax advice in any manner whatsoever.
AI Analysis:
The subject line 'Andrew Pedtke as PQME?' directly references the doctor in a QME context (PQME = Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator). This indicates discussion about his role as a medical evaluator rather than as a treating physician.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:19 PM Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote:
AI Analysis:
Message specifically discusses Andrew Pedtke in QME panel context. Attorney is seeking advice on QME panel selection and mentions there is 'very little information on Pedtke' as an evaluator. The context is clearly about medical evaluator selection for a workers' compensation case, not treatment. While limited substantive information is provided about Pedtke's evaluation quality, the message is directly about his role as a QME.
Dikla Dolev Date: May 20, 2020 12:24:00 PM Subject: QME Panel Advice: Andrew Pedtke, Adam Brooks and Jeffrey Holmes Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Dikla Dolev Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi there- I am looking for some advice on this panel as there is very little information on Pedtke and Brooks and Looks like Holmes is OK/Conservative? All 3 can schedule within 90 days. FWIW, this is on a petition to reopen with a client who has (accepted) CRPS in her lower extremity. Thank you! sincerely, Dikla Dolev Boxer &Gerson
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Andrew Pedtke in QME panel selection context. The original query asks 'who do I want?' from a panel of three doctors including Andrew Pedtke, clearly indicating QME/AME evaluator selection. While the response doesn't provide specific evaluation details about Pedtke, it's part of a medical evaluator panel discussion where attorneys are seeking recommendations for QME selection.
Anthony Polakov Date: May 05, 2020 4:20:00 PM Subject: RE: Horrible Panel, Edward Bestard, Charles Sonu, Andrew Pedtke who do I want? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Anthony S. Polakov Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Bestard is terrible. I don’t have experience with the other two. Anthony S. Polakov, Esq. Stoll, Nussbaum & Polakov, APC 11620 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310)996-7500 (310)575-4353 Fax apolakov@stolllaw.com From: Ronald Mahurin (lawnet listserver) [mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2020 2:18 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] Horrible Panel, Edward Bestard, Charles Sonu, Andrew Pedtke who do I want? List: lawnet Sent By: Ronald Mahurin Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Listserve says these doctors are bad. Who is worse Edward Bestard Charles Sonu Andrew Pedtke Thanks Ron Mahurin CLS Point Arena
AI Analysis:
Message discusses ANDREW PEDTKE in context of a 'panel' (QME panel) and characterizes the listed doctors as 'bad', which directly relates to their quality as medical evaluators. The panel context and quality assessment are relevant to QME/AME evaluation.
Listserve says these doctors are bad. Who is worse
AI Analysis:
Message subject explicitly requests 'Input needed regarding San Francisco orthopedic qualified medical evaluator...ANDREW C. PEDTKE, MD' - directly identifies him as a QME and solicits feedback about his medical evaluator services. The context clearly relates to his role as a medical evaluator, not as a treating physician.
On Mar 6, 2026, at 10:49 AM, Larry D. Rosenstein (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Andrew Pedtke specifically in context of 'PQME' (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator) role. Contains discussion about his report writing abilities and evaluation experience, which are core QME/AME competencies. The comment about being 'young to know how a bad knee or torn rotator cuff feels' relates to his credibility as a medical evaluator for injury assessments.
cognitorsj@aol.com Date: June 04, 2020 5:20:00 PM Subject: Re: Andrew Pedtke as PQME? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Thanks Marjory Doesn't tell me how he would write a report. My guess is that he is a bit young to know how a bad knee or torn rotator cuff feels. :) Mike In a message dated 6/4/2020 3:16:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, listsender@lawnet.caaa.org writes: List: lawnet Sent By: Marjory Harris Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings https://www.google.com/search?q=Andrew+Pedtke&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS604US639&oq=Andrew+Pedtke&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.3673j0j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 Marjory Harris On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:31 PM Mike Richter (lawnet listserver) < listsender@lawnet.caaa.org > wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Been looking through the thin archives. He's been in practice since 2013 and is out of SF. Any other information? Mike Richter Santa Clara
AI Analysis:
Message specifically asks about 'Andrew Pedtke as PQME' (Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator), which directly relates to his role as a medical evaluator. The sender is seeking information about his QME qualifications and experience, making this relevant to evaluating him as a medical evaluator rather than as a treating physician.
cognitorsj@aol.com Date: June 04, 2020 4:31:00 PM Subject: Andrew Pedtke as PQME? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Mike Richter Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Been looking through the thin archives. He's been in practice since 2013 and is out of SF. Any other information? Mike Richter Santa Clara
AI Analysis:
Message discusses Andrew Pedtke in QME/AME context - specifically about an orthopedic panel selection where defense struck one doctor and the sender is asking for advice between Charles Sonu or Andrew Pedtke. This is clearly about medical evaluator panel selection, not treatment. The context of 'panel' and comparison between evaluators indicates QME/AME evaluation context.
JOHN DUNN Date: April 30, 2020 1:27:00 PM Subject: East Palo Alto Ortho Panel - Charles Sonu, Andrew Pedtke Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: John Dunn Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Palo Alto Ortho Panel Defense struck Carlblom (just as well, never P&S) Charles M. Sonu or Andrew Pedtke? Both out of Fresno group Thanks, John C. Dunn, Certified Specialist San Jose (408) 351-1085 > On April 30, 2020 at 1:36 AM Statewide List Service digest wrote: > > > LAWNET Digest for Wednesday, April 29, 2020. > > 1. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 2. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 3. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 4. RE: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 5. Re: Can private rating and a Job Analysis be a 5811(a) cost? > 6. Fwd: Employer work comp fraud in Fremont, California? > 7. Death of client should I dismiss the case. > 8. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 9. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 10. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 11. Re: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > 12. Re: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > 13. Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > 14. Re: Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > 15. Re: Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > 16. Fwd: Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > 17. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 18. Re: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > 19. Re: Re: Objecting to Denial Letter being sent to PQME > 20. Re: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > 21. RE: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > 22. Re: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 23. Re: Fwd: Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > 24. Undocumented Clients Letters from employer re IRS > 25. Re: Re: Who has the burden? > 26. Re: Re:Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 27. Re: Re: Who has the burden? > 28. New Martinez decision > 29. RE: Undocumented Clients Letters from employer re IRS > 30. RE: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 31. QMEs > 32. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 33. QMEs > 34. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 35. AME > 36. Re: QMEs > 37. RE: QMEs > 38. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 39. Kudelka case re SIBTF > 40. Re: AME > 41. Re: New Martinez decision > 42. Re: Who has the burden? > 43. Re: Re: New Martinez decision > 44. Re: RE: QMEs > 45. RE: New Martinez decision > 46. RE: RE: New Martinez decision > 47. medi-cal disqualification > 48. Re: New Martinez decision > 49. RE: AME > 50. Re: QMEs > 51. Re: Re: New Martinez decision > 52. Re: medi-cal disqualification > 53. Re: Re: New Martinez decision > 54. RE: medi-cal disqualification > 55. Re: RE: AME > 56. Panel Query:Eduardo Lin, Dinesh Sharma or Behzad Emad > 57. Re: Panel Query:Eduardo Lin, Dinesh Sharma or Behzad Emad > 58. Re: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 59. RE: Who has the burden? > 60. RE: Who has the burden? > 61. Re: Fwd: Employer work comp fraud in Fremont, California? > 62. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 63. Re: Fwd: Employer work comp fraud in Fremont, California? > 64. Re: Re:Re: Who has the burden? > 65. Re: Re:Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 66. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 67. Re: Re:Re: Who has the burden? > 68. Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > 69. Re: medi-cal disqualification > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > From: Brian Freeman > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:23:00 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 1 > > This is Michael Sullivan's new jam as well. I just received an order from > the WCJ after they filed a petition compelling disclosure under LC > 4553(d). I am tempted to object to the order and test the statute as vague > and overbroad. It goes against decades of precedent in our WC system to > not allow written interrogatories. I am very tempted to take the issue up > to Writ. > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Steve Foster (lawnet listserver) < > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Steve Foster > > 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 > > > > > I have received a slew of 4663 demands from LAUGHLIN FALBO, which states: > > > > Pursuant to Labor Code section 4663(d) and Nadey v. Pleasant Valley State > > Prison and State > > Compensation Insurance Fund (2017), demand is hereby made for you to > > disclose all previous > > permanent disabilities or physical impairments pertaining to the above > > captioned individual. Please > > do so in a timely manner so as to avoid any unnecessary proceedings before > > the WCAB. > > > > I have one attorney go so far at to file a DOR which states: > > PURSUANT TO THE FINDING IN NADEY VS. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON [SCIF] > > 2017 CAL. > > WRK. COMP. P.D. LOCUS 446, DEFENDANTS SEEK AN ORDER COMPELLING THE > > APPLICANT TO > > DISCLOSE ALL PREVIOUS PERMANENT DISABILITIES OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN > > COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. > > > > Can someone please post the case? > > > > Anyone else run into this yet? In the case with the DOR, they have my > > client's deposition scheduled. Seems like they are trying to introduce > > written interrogatories into the workers' commendation system. > > > > Steve Foster > > Siles & Foster, P.C. > > Chico, CA > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > From: "K.J.P." > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:16:03 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 2 > > Browse the Archives[1] | Search the Archive[2] | www.CAAA.org [3] > > California Applicant's Attorneys Association > > The views and opinions expressed on CAAA listserves are those of the > author and do not reflect the official policy or position of CAAA. *NOTICE:* > This email contains PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information and is > intended only for the sole use of CAAA’s Regular Membership per the > Lawnet/Listserve Agreement. If you are not an intended recipient of > this email, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, > dissemination or copying of this email or the information contained in > it or attached to it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the CAAA > Administrator at admin@caaa.org[4]. Thank you. > > Powered by: TrialSmith.com[5] > > dunn.john@comcast.net (my settings[6]) > > Unsubscribe[7] > > Help[8] > > _.___.__ > > [1] http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listBrowse > [2] http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 > [3] http://www.caaa.org > [4] mailto:admin@caaa.org > [5] https://www.trialsmith.com/ > [6] http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > [7] mailto:leave-22396945-15342261.6f0c6a20b13eddb1a23e4e8d985321f8@lawnet.caaa.org > [8] http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listfaqs > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > From: Brian Freeman > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:29:22 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 3 > > It's a tool that will be used to harass the injured worker and do them > harm. It is a statute that makes us work without compensation. It is a > statute that is unnecessary as Defendants get their discovery at > deposition. It is a statute that flies in the face of the State's > Constitution and decades of legal precedent. > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver) < > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Kimberley J. Pryor > > 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 > > > > > do it. This code needs to be abolished. We don't know what previous > > disabilities etc.they have. Even if they have prior workers compensation > > cases, until we get the records we don't know, and Tyson to our clients > > home exactly what impairments in disabilities they had. We're not doctors > > and neither are our clients. Further, defendants can go on to the eams > > website and look up workers compensation cases just as much as we can. and > > they have is oh, and we don't. Why the heck do we have to do all of the > > work? Why do we, or our clients, have to guess on such important issues? > > > > > > *Kimberley J Pryor* > > *Warrior for the Worker* > > *Greater Los Angeles area* > > *Freedom is a verb.* > > > > *Sent from my Verizon Motorola Droid* > > On Apr 29, 2020 7:23 AM, "Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver)" < > > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Brian Freeman > > 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 > > > > > This is Michael Sullivan's new jam as well. I just received an order from > > the WCJ after they filed a petition compelling disclosure under LC 4553(d). > > I am tempted to object to the order and test the statute as vague and > > overbroad. It goes against decades of precedent in our WC system to not > > allow written interrogatories. I am very tempted to take the issue up to > > Writ. > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > > > Attorney at Law > > > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > > > > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Steve Foster (lawnet listserver) < > > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Steve Foster > > 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 > > > > > I have received a slew of 4663 demands from LAUGHLIN FALBO, which states: > > > > Pursuant to Labor Code section 4663(d) and Nadey v. Pleasant Valley State > > Prison and State > > Compensation Insurance Fund (2017), demand is hereby made for you to > > disclose all previous > > permanent disabilities or physical impairments pertaining to the above > > captioned individual. Please > > do so in a timely manner so as to avoid any unnecessary proceedings before > > the WCAB. > > > > I have one attorney go so far at to file a DOR which states: > > PURSUANT TO THE FINDING IN NADEY VS. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON [SCIF] > > 2017 CAL. > > WRK. COMP. P.D. LOCUS 446, DEFENDANTS SEEK AN ORDER COMPELLING THE > > APPLICANT TO > > DISCLOSE ALL PREVIOUS PERMANENT DISABILITIES OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN > > COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. > > > > Can someone please post the case? > > > > Anyone else run into this yet? In the case with the DOR, they have my > > client's deposition scheduled. Seems like they are trying to introduce > > written interrogatories into the workers' commendation system. > > > > Steve Foster > > Siles & Foster, P.C. > > Chico, CA > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: RE: Nadey 4663 demand issue > From: "Marc Appell" > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:39:52 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 4 > > I have been getting these requests at the beginning of every case since the statute was initially passed three years ago and I have always ignored the request. I’ve never had to respond to a DOR and motion to compel though. If I do get one I’ll probably object on the grounds that they are entitled to discover this information at a deposition under oath and this goes beyond that. Not sure what a judge would do. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marc J. Appell, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF MARC APPELL > > 5850 Canoga Avenue, Fourth Floor > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367 > > Tel: (818) 710-7177 > > Fax: (818) 710-7179 > > appell@appelllaw.com > > > > Alternate Email: appelllaw@gmail.com > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§2510-2521. It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by reply e-mail to appell@appelllaw.com or by calling (818) 710-7177 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. > > > > From: Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver) > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 8:29 AM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Nadey 4663 demand issue > > > > > List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Freeman > > > Reply To Sender > > Reply To List > > < http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > < http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > Settings > > > > It's a tool that will be used to harass the injured worker and do them harm. It is a statute that makes us work without compensation. It is a statute that is unnecessary as Defendants get their discovery at deposition. It is a statute that flies in the face of the State's Constitution and decades of legal precedent. > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver) > wrote: > > > List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor > > > Reply To Sender > > Reply To List > > < http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > < http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > Settings > > > > do it. This code needs to be abolished. We don't know what previous disabilities etc.they have. Even if they have prior workers compensation cases, until we get the records we don't know, and Tyson to our clients home exactly what impairments in disabilities they had. We're not doctors and neither are our clients. Further, defendants can go on to the eams website and look up workers compensation cases just as much as we can. and they have is oh, and we don't. Why the heck do we have to do all of the work? Why do we, or our clients, have to guess on such important issues? > > > > > > Kimberley J Pryor > > Warrior for the Worker > > Greater Los Angeles area > > Freedom is a verb. > > > > Sent from my Verizon Motorola Droid > > On Apr 29, 2020 7:23 AM, "Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver)" wrote: > > > List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Freeman > > > Reply To Sender > > Reply To List > > < http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > < http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > Settings > > > > This is Michael Sullivan's new jam as well. I just received an order from the WCJ after they filed a petition compelling disclosure under LC 4553(d). I am tempted to object to the order and test the statute as vague and overbroad. It goes against decades of precedent in our WC system to not allow written interrogatories. I am very tempted to take the issue up to Writ. > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Steve Foster (lawnet listserver) > wrote: > > > List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Foster > > > Reply To Sender > > Reply To List > > < http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > < http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > Settings > > > > I have received a slew of 4663 demands from LAUGHLIN FALBO, which states: > > > > Pursuant to Labor Code section 4663(d) and Nadey v. Pleasant Valley State Prison and State > Compensation Insurance Fund (2017), demand is hereby made for you to disclose all previous > permanent disabilities or physical impairments pertaining to the above captioned individual. Please > do so in a timely manner so as to avoid any unnecessary proceedings before the WCAB. > > > > I have one attorney go so far at to file a DOR which states: > > PURSUANT TO THE FINDING IN NADEY VS. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON [SCIF] 2017 CAL. > WRK. COMP. P.D. LOCUS 446, DEFENDANTS SEEK AN ORDER COMPELLING THE APPLICANT TO > DISCLOSE ALL PREVIOUS PERMANENT DISABILITIES OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN > COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. > > > > Can someone please post the case? > > > > Anyone else run into this yet? In the case with the DOR, they have my client's deposition scheduled. Seems like they are trying to introduce written interrogatories into the workers' commendation system. > > > > Steve Foster > > Siles & Foster, P.C. > > Chico, CA > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Can private rating and a Job Analysis be a 5811(a) cost? > From: Michael Grimes > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:46:38 +0000 (UTC) > X-Message-Number: 5 > > Thanks Hollie > Michael C. Grimes, EsqLAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GRIMES > 3140 Spring St.Redwood City, CA 94063-3929�650-261-1754�mgrimes@sbcglobal.netCalifornia State Bar Certified Workers Compensation Specialist > > On Tuesday, April 28, 2020, 12:52:17 PM PDT, Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) wrote: > > > | List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski | > | Reply To Sender | Reply To List | Search | Settings | > > > It will be entirely up to your WCJ, even if there is a case on costs you are trying to reimburse. I would think not for private rater - DEU would do consultative rating for free and the private rating is inadmissible information prior to Trial, immaterial at and after Trial. > Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. > � > > The Compensation Law Center > > Sacramento, CA�� 95834 > > � > > T:916.974.0424 > > F:916.974.0428 > > From: "Michael Grimes (lawnet listserver)" > To: "Statewide List Service" > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11:54:52 AM > Subject: [lawnet] Can private rating and a Job Analysis be a 5811(a) cost? > > > | List: lawnet Sent By: Michael Grimes | > | Reply To Sender | Reply To List | Search | Settings | > > > > I've filed a Petition for Costs listing the $300 cost of a private rating on a complex PTP report and about $3 k for a Job Analysis the WCJ recommended to resolve a Group Number dispute.� DA objects to both.� I've just done some key word searches in Lexis and found no authority concerning either specific cost.� Is anybody aware of any authority for awarding either cost?� Suggestions? > > -- > Michael C. Grimes > LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GRIMES > 3140 Spring St. > Redwood City, CA 94063-3929 > 650-261-1754 > State Bar Workers Compensation Law Certified Specialist > Labor Committee, California Applicant's Attorneys Association > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Fwd: Employer work comp fraud in Fremont, California? > From: maddogbab@aol.com > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:45:44 +0000 (UTC) > X-Message-Number: 6 > > CAAAleagues: > I have long been ambivalent about Basil Besh M.D. and found Tesla to be hostile to their injured workers so, while this is not surprising, it is disappointing. > > � https://www.revealnews.org/article/how-tesla-and-its-doctor-made-sure-injured-employees-didnt-get-workers-comp/ � � � > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Death of client should I dismiss the case. > From: rsteinlw@aol.com > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:56:11 +0000 (UTC) > X-Message-Number: 7 > > Client died from a non industrial illness. Should I dismiss the case? There are no monies owing to the client.� Ron Stein > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > From: Marjory Harris > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:57:40 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 8 > > My response: > “Physical disabilities or physical impairments” are technical terms. > Please provide medical records for review by the QME or AME. Please provide > any records you may have from the insurance index. > > Further, it is my understanding that [factual statement] applicant was able > to work and engage in the usual ADLs until [DOI]. > > Marjory Harris > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:30 AM Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver) < > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Brian Freeman > > Reply To Sender > > > > Reply To List > > > > Search > > < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cllq0Xyf1Auo6IF50KdbE3CLBOI_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12yfYePIUaatqvTaXMSf-2FWHfFl9ND82MJLD4IEJ2TJ1uiR-2BV2AVvh1kuf1JcULbEhWBa1YE6Dxiq1ka0s7QBdp07rfeenbxacKwsCgXt34tZqwOVaL5ykry8NVgCTtPlumzR0SM9S6eTNJfglyKu0nG84-3D > > > Settings > > < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cns8DI2HJsoCTaQNHoD7TGmjsLb8QFcrl-2BGfAeUj-2FdfsLIfS-2F4g689YXCu-2BOVECbdQ-3DEcoN_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12ydFhCRfP6YP79-2FcbbnVbbDnIWT7blFjTg-2B9JORGcshg7u5MR1SrZPndUGRIndNYWuhxiaALnL-2Bp-2BLWGg9k-2Fls8HDzFrpm81K0JssnxV7bsGbPLPxRfamr2nUsULc8eJkdoiDUNEWUwkfXkmsXurnAi4-3D > > > > > It's a tool that will be used to harass the injured worker and do them > > harm. It is a statute that makes us work without compensation. It is a > > statute that is unnecessary as Defendants get their discovery at > > deposition. It is a statute that flies in the face of the State's > > Constitution and decades of legal precedent. > > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > > > Attorney at Law > > > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=X8F0zpRDaw3RufyUNMxIaOofJKp03a9tfTMJCnqKKuo1YliYXY6SmVH209cKHx3QU-tA_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12yVYJmVxVYN8o-2FfgBQJnSCr2EjR6lf-2FlghrEWyxtg7DwpuFD35zrfCg2v-2B47Z4NaXi7ftFSp3WCFE1OhY71GcsgAeDlWjKy5sN-2FvpSdTGEJykcnB-2BMgIBxX1CXhtV6278ZHj4XmwkkNK-2BFbDcGtFsPQs-3D > > > > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver) < > > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > >> *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Kimberley J. Pryor > >> Reply To Sender > >> > >> Reply To List > >> > >> Search > >> < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cllq0Xyf1Auo6IF50KdbE3CaKIT_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12yYDb0WEPlIm-2Bmkx3JaLyIe5O2OSMxHNCX-2FwfKtwJns0JlnpdbAvtXnqvAWn50-2FJAGAT-2FkRXx170hTUBNEBXJ-2B3Ja42rYwlb9mfBtAhcnlS-2FXrumV82YSsAA8JcOUdOpXXhegekxzxlvIOUultD0GWJk-3D > > >> Settings > >> < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cns8DI2HJsoCTaQNHoD7TGmjsLb8QFcrl-2BGfAeUj-2FdfsLIfS-2F4g689YXCu-2BOVECbdQ-3DxPeH_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12ycw7tNnUsGIC8wMdBqgHZ44fN-2Fz8Q-2FJQxPjx-2FESS3z4RI2zsPObpLou7c-2Fpl2gKsmoO4IxWPreX5cklovVahNa2Y4TqPgDftNwSnlyOFdSd0ct-2BVPKMA-2FwMcrnkPBQ8zPn-2FfDHMU6qPuSft5IvieLUc-3D > > >> > >> do it. This code needs to be abolished. We don't know what previous > >> disabilities etc.they have. Even if they have prior workers compensation > >> cases, until we get the records we don't know, and Tyson to our clients > >> home exactly what impairments in disabilities they had. We're not doctors > >> and neither are our clients. Further, defendants can go on to the eams > >> website and look up workers compensation cases just as much as we can. and > >> they have is oh, and we don't. Why the heck do we have to do all of the > >> work? Why do we, or our clients, have to guess on such important issues? > >> > >> > >> *Kimberley J Pryor* > >> *Warrior for the Worker* > >> *Greater Los Angeles area* > >> *Freedom is a verb.* > >> > >> *Sent from my Verizon Motorola Droid* > >> On Apr 29, 2020 7:23 AM, "Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver)" < > >> listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > >> > >> *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Brian Freeman > >> Reply To Sender > >> > >> Reply To List > >> > >> Search > >> < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cllq0Xyf1Auo6IF50KdbE3C-hNa_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12yR0-2F71MY1OK5dVZI-2FPQyWzVPPIO-2BLUQrXCUmbnhYf8cVMRJdyfB3u5OFN3MriEfIuny-2BMa-2BOHGgFl25EJwn1u4H2rQI24935sel4r5OXN8neQoxPhhle1cSzlGucg9fE9s-2FA73xmXGe-2F1BJPyxj2Y4Q-3D > > >> Settings > >> < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cns8DI2HJsoCTaQNHoD7TGmjsLb8QFcrl-2BGfAeUj-2FdfsLIfS-2F4g689YXCu-2BOVECbdQ-3DZ-5B_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12yTpBffVAjPZtFZlx1BzhAJxxsP55savgwtWy77k2DxpAeIp9JhGdfpy1kZljhB5ICrjm1ycKdXCj5NgZixQBqPMeDs34Ut37EYmEvKoX77B3hc7Pt-2B6RzXOJwlEb9JHwjfmq8rYw4jQ-2BAlku-2BTjalIE-3D > > >> > >> This is Michael Sullivan's new jam as well. I just received an order from > >> the WCJ after they filed a petition compelling disclosure under LC 4553(d). > >> I am tempted to object to the order and test the statute as vague and > >> overbroad. It goes against decades of precedent in our WC system to not > >> allow written interrogatories. I am very tempted to take the issue up to > >> Writ. > >> > >> Brian W. Freeman > >> > >> Attorney at Law > >> > >> Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > >> > >> http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > >> < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=X8F0zpRDaw3RufyUNMxIaOofJKp03a9tfTMJCnqKKuo1YliYXY6SmVH209cKHx3Q-hkG_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12yc6ZXkk8fePDhe7RHTz-2F854umHcLlTEULpizUnRLExSYxxH2xF-2FQV-2Fgpi9ucsiRTJB5shbjKvRcSXi7NSUaDbYxkL-2F4TbNu0cRG2u98uAfYqsqcZkNu-2BYGJW-2BuMqeGUOwupdmjk9HyK7rTPY2KMyfDs-3D > > >> > >> Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Steve Foster (lawnet listserver) < > >> listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > >> > >> *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Steve Foster > >> Reply To Sender > >> > >> Reply To List > >> > >> Search > >> < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cllq0Xyf1Auo6IF50KdbE3CjCMT_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12yfvTt1iL-2F0mn4upGie6MswcdvpoOSADs5wubOrd0agHiJ9WSivEe5yFPnUA2nGr2QiFVn7VCR-2BgIYY0AbPdBmqvLiIhfyKl4MilWbF3p-2FlXthYNART6LBZ-2B-2BqkANlpY-2FRmcBjP9PhbkkVYnSv5uAYyY-3D > > >> Settings > >> < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cns8DI2HJsoCTaQNHoD7TGmjsLb8QFcrl-2BGfAeUj-2FdfsLIfS-2F4g689YXCu-2BOVECbdQ-3D8Dli_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejmXZlLqmmzt-2BAGLt12hb0TuTKWj0DO05TtLE1tnQe12yY-2FV13l-2FqI7R2SdIStlX4w6c5Tv05sg8b8lutkgj-2FnAcGsLCSKHmSXQIz-2B1rkUsjJvayYZTz9iJkyH2TzCo0AoPPVUJjj7zXrqh7oXkNO7c51DN8jk9eam5k-2BLclIO6Uk6Sal1W4xRhPUONnPo8g2tg-3D > > >> > >> I have received a slew of 4663 demands from LAUGHLIN FALBO, which states: > >> > >> Pursuant to Labor Code section 4663(d) and Nadey v. Pleasant Valley State > >> Prison and State > >> Compensation Insurance Fund (2017), demand is hereby made for you to > >> disclose all previous > >> permanent disabilities or physical impairments pertaining to the above > >> captioned individual. Please > >> do so in a timely manner so as to avoid any unnecessary proceedings > >> before the WCAB. > >> > >> I have one attorney go so far at to file a DOR which states: > >> PURSUANT TO THE FINDING IN NADEY VS. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON [SCIF] > >> 2017 CAL. > >> WRK. COMP. P.D. LOCUS 446, DEFENDANTS SEEK AN ORDER COMPELLING THE > >> APPLICANT TO > >> DISCLOSE ALL PREVIOUS PERMANENT DISABILITIES OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN > >> COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. > >> > >> Can someone please post the case? > >> > >> Anyone else run into this yet? In the case with the DOR, they have my > >> client's deposition scheduled. Seems like they are trying to introduce > >> written interrogatories into the workers' commendation system. > >> > >> Steve Foster > >> Siles & Foster, P.C. > >> Chico, CA > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > From: Brian Freeman > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:00:06 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 9 > > Since defense firms are bored I think we will see this tool of theirs being > used and pushed more. Watch Sullivan's office - I bet they are going to > start regularly filing petitions. > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:40 AM Marc Appell (lawnet listserver) < > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Marc Appell > > 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 > > > > > I have been getting these requests at the beginning of every case since > > the statute was initially passed three years ago and I have always ignored > > the request. I’ve never had to respond to a DOR and motion to compel > > though. If I do get one I’ll probably object on the grounds that they are > > entitled to discover this information at a deposition under oath and this > > goes beyond that. Not sure what a judge would do. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Marc J. Appell, Esq. > > > > LAW OFFICES OF MARC APPELL > > > > 5850 Canoga Avenue, Fourth Floor > > > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367 > > > > Tel: (818) 710-7177 > > > > Fax: (818) 710-7179 > > > > appell@appelllaw.com > > > > > > > > Alternate Email: appelllaw@gmail.com > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files > > or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential > > information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the > > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§2510-2521. It is intended > > solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or > > sent to any other recipient in any form. If you are not the intended > > recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended > > recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > > distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to > > this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in > > error, please immediately advise by reply e-mail to > > appell@appelllaw.com or by calling (818) > > 710-7177 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without > > reading or saving in any manner. > > > > > > > > *From:* Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver) > > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2020 8:29 AM > > *To:* Statewide List Service > > *Subject:* Re: [lawnet] Nadey 4663 demand issue > > > > > > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Brian Freeman > > > > *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 > > > > > > > > > It's a tool that will be used to harass the injured worker and do them > > harm. It is a statute that makes us work without compensation. It is a > > statute that is unnecessary as Defendants get their discovery at > > deposition. It is a statute that flies in the face of the State's > > Constitution and decades of legal precedent. > > > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > > > Attorney at Law > > > > *Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law* > > > > > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > > > > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver) < > > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Kimberley J. Pryor > > > > *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 > > > > > > > > > do it. This code needs to be abolished. We don't know what previous > > disabilities etc.they have. Even if they have prior workers compensation > > cases, until we get the records we don't know, and Tyson to our clients > > home exactly what impairments in disabilities they had. We're not doctors > > and neither are our clients. Further, defendants can go on to the eams > > website and look up workers compensation cases just as much as we can. and > > they have is oh, and we don't. Why the heck do we have to do all of the > > work? Why do we, or our clients, have to guess on such important issues? > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kimberley J Pryor* > > > > *Warrior for the Worker* > > > > *Greater Los Angeles area* > > > > *Freedom is a verb.* > > > > > > > > *Sent from my Verizon Motorola Droid* > > > > On Apr 29, 2020 7:23 AM, "Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver)" < > > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Brian Freeman > > > > *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 > > > > > > > > > This is Michael Sullivan's new jam as well. I just received an order from > > the WCJ after they filed a petition compelling disclosure under LC 4553(d). > > I am tempted to object to the order and test the statute as vague and > > overbroad. It goes against decades of precedent in our WC system to not > > allow written interrogatories. I am very tempted to take the issue up to > > Writ. > > > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > > > Attorney at Law > > > > *Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law* > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > > > > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Steve Foster (lawnet listserver) < > > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Steve Foster > > > > *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 > > > > > > > > > I have received a slew of 4663 demands from LAUGHLIN FALBO, which states: > > > > > > > > Pursuant to Labor Code section 4663(d) and Nadey v. Pleasant Valley State > > Prison and State > > Compensation Insurance Fund (2017), demand is hereby made for you to > > disclose all previous > > permanent disabilities or physical impairments pertaining to the above > > captioned individual. Please > > do so in a timely manner so as to avoid any unnecessary proceedings before > > the WCAB. > > > > > > > > I have one attorney go so far at to file a DOR which states: > > > > PURSUANT TO THE FINDING IN NADEY VS. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON [SCIF] > > 2017 CAL. > > WRK. COMP. P.D. LOCUS 446, DEFENDANTS SEEK AN ORDER COMPELLING THE > > APPLICANT TO > > DISCLOSE ALL PREVIOUS PERMANENT DISABILITIES OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN > > COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. > > > > > > > > Can someone please post the case? > > > > > > > > Anyone else run into this yet? In the case with the DOR, they have my > > client's deposition scheduled. Seems like they are trying to introduce > > written interrogatories into the workers' commendation system. > > > > > > > > Steve Foster > > > > Siles & Foster, P.C. > > > > Chico, CA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > From: "M. Hollie Rutkowski" > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:45:05 -0700 (PDT) > X-Message-Number: 10 > > Someone asked for the Nadey decision. I have attached it. But look at the other case I posted, Villicana from 2008. WCAB said that the AA met the requirements on 4663 because the Def had medical records that discussed prior back problem. Both Nadey and Villicana are Board Panel Decisions. If DA cites Nadey, AA cites Villicana . Might need to shepardize both, however. > > I also attached another case that is holds same as Nadey , which is below. (By the way, I look up every new client on EAMS. I do not see that as a burden and anyone who wants to argue that looking at EAMS is unduly burdensome has an axe to grind.) > > AA response is on the actual words of the statute, " previous permanent disabilities or physical impairments". It seems to me that the AA argument is that IW has to have a permanent disability or physical impairment. "P ermanent" implies a record of a prior finding of permanence, by either F&A or Social Security award. The statute does NOT require AA to disclose prior treatment for back pain. > > > > Danny Hill, Applicant v. State of California Department of Transportation, legally uninsured and adjusted by State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants, [ https://advance.lexis.com/api/document/collection/administrative-materials/id/5PDN-X070-02DC-H2P9-00000-00?cite=2017%20Cal.%20Wrk.%20Comp.%20P.D.%20LEXIS%20340&context=1000516 | 2017 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 340 ] > > Permanent Disability—Apportionment—Disclosure of Prior Disabilities—WCAB, granting removal, rescinded WCJ’s order denying defendant’s petition to compel applicant to disclose all prior permanent disabilities and physical impairments pursuant to Labor Code § 4663(d), and returned matter to WCJ for further proceedings, when applicant failed to respond to defendant’s multiple requests that applicant disclose past medical treatment, and WCAB, while observing that defendant’s requests were not pursuant to Labor Code § 4663(d) (which only requires disclosure of previous permanent disabilities or physical impairments, not of all medical treatment), found that defendant’s petition to compel did seek disclosure carefully modeled on language in Labor Code § 4663(d) and required applicant to disclose prior permanent disabilities and physical impairments, within timeframe and by method to be determined upon return to trial level. [See generally Hanna, Cal. Law of Emp. Inj. and Workers’ Comp. 2d §§ 8.05[1], 8.06[4]; Rassp & Herlick , California Workers’ Compensation Law , Ch. 7, § 7.40.] > > Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. > > > > > The Compensation Law Center > > Sacramento, CA 95834 > > > > T:916.974.0424 > > F:916.974.0428 > > > From: "Marc Appell (lawnet listserver)" > To: "Statewide List Service" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 8:39:52 AM > Subject: RE: [lawnet] Nadey 4663 demand issue > > List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:appell@appelllaw.com | Marc Appell ] > > [ mailto:appell@appelllaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To Sender ] > > [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To List ] > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search | Search ] > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings | Settings ] > > > I have been getting these requests at the beginning of every case since the statute was initially passed three years ago and I have always ignored the request. I’ve never had to respond to a DOR and motion to compel though. If I do get one I’ll probably object on the grounds that they are entitled to discover this information at a deposition under oath and this goes beyond that. Not sure what a judge would do. > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marc J. Appell, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF MARC APPELL > > 5850 Canoga Avenue, Fourth Floor > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367 > > Tel: (818) 710-7177 > > Fax: (818) 710-7179 > > [ mailto:appell@appelllaw.com%3cmailto:appell@appelllaw.com | appell@appelllaw.com > > > > Alternate Email: [ mailto:appelllaw@gmail.com%3cmailto:appelllaw@gmail.com | appelllaw@gmail.com > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§2510-2521. It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by reply e-mail to [ mailto:appell@appelllaw.com%3cmailto:appell@appelllaw.com | appell@appelllaw.com or by calling (818) 710-7177 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. > > > > > > From: Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver) > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 8:29 AM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Nadey 4663 demand issue > > > > > > List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:brian@brianwfreeman.com | Brian Freeman ] > > > > [ mailto:brian@brianwfreeman.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To Sender ] > > > > [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To List ] > > > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search | Search ] > > > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings | Settings ] > > > > > > It's a tool that will be used to harass the injured worker and do them harm. It is a statute that makes us work without compensation. It is a statute that is unnecessary as Defendants get their discovery at deposition. It is a statute that flies in the face of the State's Constitution and decades of legal precedent. > > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > [ http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ | http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com ] > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver) < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org | listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > wrote: > > > > > > List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:kpryoresq@aol.com | Kimberley J. Pryor ] > > > > [ mailto:kpryoresq@aol.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To Sender ] > > > > [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To List ] > > > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search | Search ] > > > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings | Settings ] > > > > > > do it. This code needs to be abolished. We don't know what previous disabilities etc.they have. Even if they have prior workers compensation cases, until we get the records we don't know, and Tyson to our clients home exactly what impairments in disabilities they had. We're not doctors and neither are our clients. Further, defendants can go on to the eams website and look up workers compensation cases just as much as we can. and they have is oh, and we don't. Why the heck do we have to do all of the work? Why do we, or our clients, have to guess on such important issues? > > > > > > > > > Kimberley J Pryor > > > Warrior for the Worker > > > Greater Los Angeles area > > > Freedom is a verb. > > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Motorola Droid > > > On Apr 29, 2020 7:23 AM, "Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver)" < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org | listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > wrote: > BQ_BEGIN > > > > List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:brian@brianwfreeman.com | Brian Freeman ] > > > > [ mailto:brian@brianwfreeman.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To Sender ] > > > > [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To List ] > > > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search | Search ] > > > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings | Settings ] > > > > > > This is Michael Sullivan's new jam as well. I just received an order from the WCJ after they filed a petition compelling disclosure under LC 4553(d). I am tempted to object to the order and test the statute as vague and overbroad. It goes against decades of precedent in our WC system to not allow written interrogatories. I am very tempted to take the issue up to Writ. > > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > [ http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ | http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com ] > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Steve Foster (lawnet listserver) < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org | listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > wrote: > > BQ_BEGIN > > > > List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:sellnout@yahoo.com | Steve Foster ] > > > > [ mailto:sellnout@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To Sender ] > > > > [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Nadey%204663%20demand%20issue | Reply To List ] > > > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search | Search ] > > > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings | Settings ] > > > > > > I have received a slew of 4663 demands from LAUGHLIN FALBO, which states: > > > > > > Pursuant to Labor Code section 4663(d) and Nadey v. Pleasant Valley State Prison and State > Compensation Insurance Fund (2017), demand is hereby made for you to disclose all previous > permanent disabilities or physical impairments pertaining to the above captioned individual. Please > do so in a timely manner so as to avoid any unnecessary proceedings before the WCAB. > > > > > > I have one attorney go so far at to file a DOR which states: > > > PURSUANT TO THE FINDING IN NADEY VS. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON [SCIF] 2017 CAL. > WRK. COMP. P.D. LOCUS 446, DEFENDANTS SEEK AN ORDER COMPELLING THE APPLICANT TO > DISCLOSE ALL PREVIOUS PERMANENT DISABILITIES OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN > COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. > > > > > > Can someone please post the case? > > > > > > Anyone else run into this yet? In the case with the DOR, they have my client's deposition scheduled. Seems like they are trying to introduce written interrogatories into the workers' commendation system. > > > > > > Steve Foster > > > Siles & Foster, P.C. > > > Chico, CA > > > > > > > > > > > BQ_END > > > > > > BQ_END > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > From: Marina Wynn > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:51:43 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 11 > > Yes. I just got approved. My CPA is great! I wasn't even going to > apply, but he insisted, and I got it. > > Everyone should try and apply while there is still money in it. Have your > CPAs do it for you. > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:00 PM Keith A. Seagull (lawnet listserver) < > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Keith A. Seagull > > 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 > > > > > Has anyone applied for and secured a Payroll Protection Plan loan yet? > > Any suggestions? > > > > Keith Seagull > > Pomona > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > -- > Marina Ramos Wynn > Attorney at Law > > *Mailing Address:* > P.O. Box 20877 > Richmond, CA 94820-0877 > > *By Arrangement Only:* > 3150 Hilltop Mall Road, No. 92 > Richmond, CA 94806 > > Certified Specialist, California State Bar, since 1997 > > 510 663 9611 > 510 663 9614 fax > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > From: "M. Hollie Rutkowski" > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:54:50 -0700 (PDT) > X-Message-Number: 12 > > I had my application "accepted" - don't know what that means. > > Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. > > > > > The Compensation Law Center > > Sacramento, CA 95834 > > > > T:916.974.0424 > > F:916.974.0428 > > > From: "Marina Ramos Wynn (lawnet listserver)" > To: "Statewide List Service" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:51:43 AM > Subject: Re: [lawnet] SBA - Payroll Protection Program > > List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:marina@marinawynnlaw.com | Marina Ramos Wynn ] > > [ mailto:marina@marinawynnlaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20SBA%20-%20Payroll%20Protection%20Program | Reply To Sender ] > > [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%20%20%5Blawnet%5D%20SBA%20-%20Payroll%20Protection%20Program | Reply To List ] > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search | Search ] > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings | Settings ] > > Yes. I just got approved. My CPA is great! I wasn't even going to apply, but he insisted, and I got it. > > Everyone should try and apply while there is still money in it. Have your CPAs do it for you. > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:00 PM Keith A. Seagull (lawnet listserver) < [ mailto:listsender@lawnet.caaa.org | listsender@lawnet.caaa.org ] > wrote: > > > > List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:workcomp@seagull-law.com | Keith A. Seagull ] > > [ mailto:workcomp@seagull-law.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20SBA%20-%20Payroll%20Protection%20Program | Reply To Sender ] > > [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20SBA%20-%20Payroll%20Protection%20Program | Reply To List ] > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search | Search ] > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings | Settings ] > > Has anyone applied for and secured a Payroll Protection Plan loan yet? > Any suggestions? > > Keith Seagull > Pomona > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > -- > Marina Ramos Wynn > Attorney at Law > > Mailing Address: > P.O. Box 20877 > Richmond, CA 94820-0877 > > By Arrangement Only: > 3150 Hilltop Mall Road, No. 92 > Richmond, CA 94806 > > Certified Specialist, California State Bar, since 1997 > > 510 663 9611 > 510 663 9614 fax > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > From: rsteinlw@aol.com > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:01:23 +0000 (UTC) > X-Message-Number: 13 > > I will be selling my Practice to ADAM Stewart. We have an agreement of fees. DO I still have to file an itemized list of all of the work I did on the case in my petition for attorney fees? THat could takes months. Do you think Hat I could just put in an amount with out itemizing and explain in the petition that I am selling my practice? Your thoughts� Ron Stein. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > From: "M. Hollie Rutkowski" > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:08:53 -0700 (PDT) > X-Message-Number: 14 > > I haven't any experience, but it seems to me that a written contract with Adam Stewart would be sufficient unless you want your fees based on quantum meruit rather than a percentage of the settlement. > > Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq. > > > > > The Compensation Law Center > > Sacramento, CA 95834 > > > > T:916.974.0424 > > F:916.974.0428 > > > From: "Ronald M. Stein (lawnet listserver)" > To: "Statewide List Service" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:01:23 AM > Subject: [lawnet] Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > > List: lawnet Sent By: [ mailto:rsteinlw@aol.com | Ronald M. Stein ] > > [ mailto:rsteinlw@aol.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Petition%20for%20attorney%20fees.%20%20when%20selling%20ones%20practie | Reply To Sender ] > > [ mailto:lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blawnet%5D%20Petition%20for%20attorney%20fees.%20%20when%20selling%20ones%20practie | Reply To List ] > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search | Search ] > > [ http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings | Settings ] > > I will be selling my Practice to ADAM Stewart. We have an agreement of fees. DO I still have to file an itemized list of all of the work I did on the case in my petition for attorney fees? THat could takes months. Do you think Hat I could just put in an amount with out itemizing and explain in the petition that I am selling my practice? Your thoughts Ron Stein. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > From: maddogbab@aol.com > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:15:16 +0000 (UTC) > X-Message-Number: 15 > > i agree with Hollie.� if you've got a deal with someone you trust, then you've got a deal.� If you don't trust him, then you shouldn't be making your deal.� if you feel you must file something with the WCAB, rather than file petitions, why not just file liens? > Mad Dog > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hollie Rutkowski (lawnet listserver) > To: Statewide List Service > Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2020 10:08 am > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > > #yiv9974896713 #yiv9974896713 *.yiv9974896713noresizefonts {}#yiv9974896713 * {}#yiv9974896713 #yiv9974896713 .yiv9974896713noresizefonts {}#yiv9974896713 @media only screen and (max-width:600px) > | List: lawnet Sent By: Hollie Rutkowski | > | Reply To Sender | Reply To List | Search | Settings | > > > I haven't any experience, but it seems to me that a written contract with Adam Stewart would be sufficient unless you want your fees based on quantum meruit rather than a percentage of the settlement. > Hollie Rutkowski, RN, JD, MBA, Esq.�The Compensation Law CenterSacramento, CA�� 95834�T:916.974.0424F:916.974.0428 > From: "Ronald M. Stein (lawnet listserver)" > To: "Statewide List Service" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:01:23 AM > Subject: [lawnet] Petition for attorney fees. �when selling ones practie > > > | List: lawnet Sent By: Ronald M. Stein | > | Reply To Sender | Reply To List | Search | Settings | > > > I will be selling my Practice to ADAM Stewart. We have an agreement of fees. DO I still have to file an itemized list of all of the work I did on the case in my petition for attorney fees? THat could takes months. Do you think Hat I could just put in an amount with out itemizing and explain in the petition that I am selling my practice? Your thoughts� Ron Stein. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Fwd: Petition for attorney fees. when selling ones practie > From: rsteinlw@aol.com > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:19:50 +0000 (UTC) > X-Message-Number: 16 > > I will be selling my Practice to ADAM Stewart. We have an agreement of fees. DO I still have to file an itemized list of all of the work I did on the case in my petition for attorney fees? THat could takes months. Do you think Hat I could just put in an amount with out itemizing and explain in the petition that I am selling my practice? Your thoughts� Ron Stein. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Nadey 4663 demand issue > From: William Morris > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:40:56 +0000 (UTC) > X-Message-Number: 17 > > Me too. My response would be that my client, being entitled to representation, and obtaining same should not be allowed to submit such a document without an attorney review which means I'm being required to exert my time without compensation. The Board procedures do not allow for interrogatories, which this is, but do allow depositions which the Defendant should follow. > wsmorrisTurlock, Ca > The Sage Grouse is an endangered species. > “Poor soul, you will never know anything > of real importance. You will not uncover > even one of life's secrets. Although all religions > promise paradise, take care to create your own > paradise here and now on earth.” > ― Omar Khayyám, The Ruba'iyat of Omar Khayyam > Why are things as they are and not otherwise? > Johannes Kepler--Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596) > Overheard in Sacramento,Harder: Why do you always answer a question with a question?Rutkowski: Who told you that? > > > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020, 08:40:11 AM PDT, Marc Appell (lawnet listserver) wrote: > > > | List: lawnet Sent By: Marc Appell | > | Reply To Sender | Reply To List | Search | Settings | > > > > I have been getting these requests at the beginning of every case since the statute was initially passed three years ago and I have always ignored the request. I’ve never had to respond to a DOR and motion to compel though. If I do get one I’ll probably object on the grounds that they are entitled to discover this information at a deposition under oath and this goes beyond that. Not sure what a judge would do. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marc J. Appell, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF MARC APPELL > > 5850 Canoga Avenue, Fourth Floor > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367 > > Tel: (818) 710-7177 > > Fax: (818) 710-7179 > > appell@appelllaw.com > > > > Alternate Email: appelllaw@gmail.com > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§2510-2521. It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by reply e-mail to appell@appelllaw.com or by calling (818) 710-7177 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. > > > > From: Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver) > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 8:29 AM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Nadey 4663 demand issue > > > > | > List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Freeman > | > | > Reply To Sender > | > Reply To List > | > Search > | > Settings > | > > > > > It's a tool that will be used to harass the injured worker and do them harm. It is a statute that makes us work without compensation. It is a statute that is unnecessary as Defendants get their discovery at deposition. It is a statute that flies in the face of the State's Constitution and decades of legal precedent. > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver) wrote: > > > | > List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor > | > | > Reply To Sender > | > Reply To List > | > Search > | > Settings > | > > > > > do it. This code needs to be abolished. We don't know what previous disabilities etc.they have. Even if they have prior workers compensation cases, until we get the records we don't know, and Tyson to our clients home exactly what impairments in disabilities they had. We're not doctors and neither are our clients. Further, defendants can go on to the eams website and look up workers compensation cases just as much as we can. and they have is oh, and we don't. Why the heck do we have to do all of the work? Why do we, or our clients, have to guess on such important issues? > > > > > > Kimberley J Pryor > > Warrior for the Worker > > Greater Los Angeles area > > Freedom is a verb. > > > > Sent from my Verizon Motorola Droid > > On Apr 29, 2020 7:23 AM, "Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver)" wrote: > > > | > List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Freeman > | > | > Reply To Sender > | > Reply To List > | > Search > | > Settings > | > > > > > This is Michael Sullivan's new jam as well. I just received an order from the WCJ after they filed a petition compelling disclosure under LC 4553(d). I am tempted to object to the order and test the statute as vague and overbroad. It goes against decades of precedent in our WC system to not allow written interrogatories. I am very tempted to take the issue up to Writ. > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Steve Foster (lawnet listserver) wrote: > > > | > List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Foster > | > | > Reply To Sender > | > Reply To List > | > Search > | > Settings > | > > > > > I have received a slew of 4663 demands from LAUGHLIN FALBO, which states: > > > > Pursuant to Labor Code section 4663(d) and Nadey v. Pleasant Valley State Prison and State > Compensation Insurance Fund (2017), demand is hereby made for you to disclose all previous > permanent disabilities or physical impairments pertaining to the above captioned individual. Please > do so in a timely manner so as to avoid any unnecessary proceedings before the WCAB. > > > > I have one attorney go so far at to file a DOR which states: > > PURSUANT TO THE FINDING IN NADEY VS. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON [SCIF] 2017 CAL. > WRK. COMP. P.D. LOCUS 446, DEFENDANTS SEEK AN ORDER COMPELLING THE APPLICANT TO > DISCLOSE ALL PREVIOUS PERMANENT DISABILITIES OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN > COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. > > > > Can someone please post the case? > > > > Anyone else run into this yet? In the case with the DOR, they have my client's deposition scheduled. Seems like they are trying to introduce written interrogatories into the workers' commendation system. > > > > Steve Foster > > Siles & Foster, P.C. > > Chico, CA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been getting these requests at the beginning of every case since the statute was initially passed three years ago and I have always ignored the request. I’ve never had to respond to a DOR and motion to compel though. If I do get one I’ll probably object on the grounds that they are entitled to discover this information at a deposition under oath and this goes beyond that. Not sure what a judge would do. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marc J. Appell, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF MARC APPELL > > 5850 Canoga Avenue, Fourth Floor > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367 > > Tel: (818) 710-7177 > > Fax: (818) 710-7179 > > appell@appelllaw.com > > > > Alternate Email: appelllaw@gmail.com > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§2510-2521. It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by reply e-mail to appell@appelllaw.com or by calling (818) 710-7177 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. > > > > From: Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver) > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 8:29 AM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: [lawnet] Nadey 4663 demand issue > > > > | > List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Freeman > | > | > Reply To Sender > | > Reply To List > | > Search > | > Settings > | > > > > > It's a tool that will be used to harass the injured worker and do them harm. It is a statute that makes us work without compensation. It is a statute that is unnecessary as Defendants get their discovery at deposition. It is a statute that flies in the face of the State's Constitution and decades of legal precedent. > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kimberley J. Pryor (lawnet listserver) wrote: > > > | > List: lawnet Sent By: Kimberley J. Pryor > | > | > Reply To Sender > | > Reply To List > | > Search > | > Settings > | > > > > > do it. This code needs to be abolished. We don't know what previous disabilities etc.they have. Even if they have prior workers compensation cases, until we get the records we don't know, and Tyson to our clients home exactly what impairments in disabilities they had. We're not doctors and neither are our clients. Further, defendants can go on to the eams website and look up workers compensation cases just as much as we can. and they have is oh, and we don't. Why the heck do we have to do all of the work? Why do we, or our clients, have to guess on such important issues? > > > > > > Kimberley J Pryor > > Warrior for the Worker > > Greater Los Angeles area > > Freedom is a verb. > > > > Sent from my Verizon Motorola Droid > > On Apr 29, 2020 7:23 AM, "Brian Freeman (lawnet listserver)" wrote: > > > | > List: lawnet Sent By: Brian Freeman > | > | > Reply To Sender > | > Reply To List > | > Search > | > Settings > | > > > > > This is Michael Sullivan's new jam as well. I just received an order from the WCJ after they filed a petition compelling disclosure under LC 4553(d). I am tempted to object to the order and test the statute as vague and overbroad. It goes against decades of precedent in our WC system to not allow written interrogatories. I am very tempted to take the issue up to Writ. > > > > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Steve Foster (lawnet listserver) wrote: > > > | > List: lawnet Sent By: Steve Foster > | > | > Reply To Sender > | > Reply To List > | > Search > | > Settings > | > > > > > I have received a slew of 4663 demands from LAUGHLIN FALBO, which states: > > > > Pursuant to Labor Code section 4663(d) and Nadey v. Pleasant Valley State Prison and State > Compensation Insurance Fund (2017), demand is hereby made for you to disclose all previous > permanent disabilities or physical impairments pertaining to the above captioned individual. Please > do so in a timely manner so as to avoid any unnecessary proceedings before the WCAB. > > > > I have one attorney go so far at to file a DOR which states: > > PURSUANT TO THE FINDING IN NADEY VS. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON [SCIF] 2017 CAL. > WRK. COMP. P.D. LOCUS 446, DEFENDANTS SEEK AN ORDER COMPELLING THE APPLICANT TO > DISCLOSE ALL PREVIOUS PERMANENT DISABILITIES OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN > COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. > > > > Can someone please post the case? > > > > Anyone else run into this yet? In the case with the DOR, they have my client's deposition scheduled. Seems like they are trying to introduce written interrogatories into the workers' commendation system. > > > > Steve Foster > > Siles & Foster, P.C. > > Chico, CA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > From: Brian Freeman > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:44:32 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 18 > > Wow that's great (and unusual) news! I had applied from day one through > Navy Federal Credit Union and got nowhere. I re-applied through a broker > to multiple lenders - now I wait and see and hope the money doesn't run out > again by tomorrow. > > > > Brian W. Freeman > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Specialist in CA Workers' Compensation Law > > > > http://WorkersCompensationLawyerInc.com > < http://workerscompensationlawyerinc.com/ > > > Phone & Fax: (844) 4 AVG JOE > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:52 AM Marina Ramos Wynn (lawnet listserver) < > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Marina Ramos Wynn > > 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 > > > > > Yes. I just got approved. My CPA is great! I wasn't even going to > > apply, but he insisted, and I got it. > > > > Everyone should try and apply while there is still money in it. Have your > > CPAs do it for you. > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:00 PM Keith A. Seagull (lawnet listserver) < > > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > >> *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Keith A. Seagull > >> 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 > > >> > >> Has anyone applied for and secured a Payroll Protection Plan loan yet? > >> Any suggestions? > >> > >> Keith Seagull > >> Pomona > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > > > > > > -- > > Marina Ramos Wynn > > Attorney at Law > > > > *Mailing Address:* > > P.O. Box 20877 > > Richmond, CA 94820-0877 > > > > *By Arrangement Only:* > > 3150 Hilltop Mall Road, No. 92 > > Richmond, CA 94806 > > > > Certified Specialist, California State Bar, since 1997 > > > > 510 663 9611 > > 510 663 9614 fax > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Re: Objecting to Denial Letter being sent to PQME > From: Kathleen Castro > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:46:11 +0000 (UTC) > X-Message-Number: 19 > > Thank you Marjory and Holly for your responses. Very informative. I have objected to the inclusion of the denial letters and have requested that parties enter into a protective order for some of the medical records included in the subpoenaed records Defendant served upon me, which pertained to unrelated personal health conditions of the Applicant. > > Thank you, > > Kathleen A. Castro, 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) > > Due to COVID-19 and the Declaration of a National Emergency with the federal directive to minimize spread of the virus, we are serving by electronic and/or facsimile transmission. If your office requires a copy to be sent via regular mail, please let us know. > > 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. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MarjoryHarrisLaw@gmail.com > Sent: April 24, 2020 1:40:00 PM > To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: Objecting to Denial Letter being sent to PQME > > Here is the important en banc decision that will help you respond to > defense attorney: > https://www.dir.ca.gov/wcab/EnBancdecisions2018/Suon-Sandab.pdf > > Marjory Harris > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:01 AM Kathleen Castro (lawnet listserver) < > listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: > > > *List:* lawnet *Sent By:* Kathleen Castro > > Reply To Sender > > > > Reply To List > > > > Search > > < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cllq0Xyf1Auo6IF50KdbE3Ck1Fd_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejkCSyYXGEXUcVjoonatp1J-2FiKH-2FLdoZhK-2FOHevUE7KJDcBGG4HBKcEKGMyehseDM63JU-2F665S5vjTwpLHqhQ-2BEea1ODNLzmwwVKZburpb99cdZ1YoJP-2F66LJMl8YbSmKi8iyrsVyeJve9WsgBI5Vg5pZ2VjudGzdFDCBmfV-2BAsabBWo-2FNAKqf7OhfKzAUyRcG4-3D > > > Settings > > < https://u689440.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cns8DI2HJsoCTaQNHoD7TGmjsLb8QFcrl-2BGfAeUj-2FdfsLIfS-2F4g689YXCu-2BOVECbdQ-3DD_fa_2tx3JNI6ol3W1IKNDZkB4xij83R-2B0Iback5TeIg9ejkCSyYXGEXUcVjoonatp1J-2FiKH-2FLdoZhK-2FOHevUE7KJDQ-2FvFukvgB-2FkfgWTrLcPoZGO0HL-2F7n7psVrsVUEOwM6uHCftA3SqhD6xftEqMLAcd5URcdJ2w3AgGSwJT7m2ENaD-2FUWAoGjhgV8cKrZuwSf7E6WtwGVrg3PkYKtkPrUlPzpwBmrz-2FcRpvxU6MHdVRuE-3D > > > > > Hello All, > > > > I tried first searching in the archives but was unable to locate an answer > > on point; am I allowed to object to the inclusion of the denial letter as > > part of records being sent to the PQME? The denial letter specifies that > > the action that the Applicant was performing, a care taker assisting the > > patient moving a plant, "is not provided for in the Notice of Action > > (NOA)." > > > > Would defense have a legal argument for including the denial letter in the > > records for PQME review? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Kathleen A. Castro, Esq. > > LAW OFFICES OF SANDRA H. CASTRO, INC. > > 3200 Inland Empire Blvd, Suite 265 > > < https://www.google.com/maps/search/3200+Inland+Empire+Blvd,+Suite+265+%0D%0AOntario,+CA+91764?entry=gmail&source=g > > > Ontario, CA 91764 > > < https://www.google.com/maps/search/3200+Inland+Empire+Blvd,+Suite+265+%0D%0AOntario,+CA+91764?entry=gmail&source=g > > > (909) 989-2700 (phone) > > (909) 989-2733 (fax) > > > > Due to COVID-19 and the Declaration of a National Emergency with the > > federal directive to minimize spread of the virus, we are serving by > > electronic and/or facsimile transmission. If your office requires a copy to > > be sent via regular mail, please let us know. > > > > 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. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > From: Ullasini Dholakia > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:07:00 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 20 > > Keith. My cell is 7143299270 > Please rush and apply with smaller bank. > Please call if you need any assistance Sending you separate e mail. Joy > > Joy Dholakia > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 27, 2020, at 2:00 PM, Keith A. Seagull (lawnet listserver) wrote: > > > > > > List: lawnet Sent By: Keith A. Seagull > > Reply To Sender > > Reply To List > > Search > > Settings > > > > Has anyone applied for and secured a Payroll Protection Plan loan yet? > > Any suggestions? > > > > Keith Seagull > > Pomona > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: RE: SBA - Payroll Protection Program > From: Denise Kuper > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:25:10 +0000 > X-Message-Number: 21 > > > Also, depending on where your business is, some cities have assistance for small businesses and will assist you in getting the loan. For example, Long Beach has a program that will assist you with connecting with a bank if you don’t have a relationship with one. > > Good luck ð! > > I cut and pasted this from an email from my city council person, maybe your city has something like this: > > Economic Development Updates for Small Business Assistance > > REMINDER: City of Long Beach Partner Processing Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Applications > • The National Development Council (NDC) is now officially a PPP lender. > • The City of Long Beach has a longstanding partnership with NDC. This partnership enables Long Beach small businesses to submit PPP applications through NDC's application portal. > • Funds are limited and we encourage Long Beach small businesses that may benefit from this program to apply as soon as possible. > Following is a link to the NDC's PPP application portal: https://ndconline.org/ppp/ > > > Denise M. Kuper, 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 > Cellular (562) 706-6467 > > All employees of the Law Offices of Kuper & Wilson are primarily working remotely in light of the mandatory Orders of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and City of Long Beach. Under the circumstances, and until further notice, the Law Offices of Kuper & Wilson cannot consistently pick up mail and/or deliveries. We also have limited access to the office telephone and facsimiles. The preferred, best method of communication with us is via e-mail. Additional contact information for our office is provided below: > > Denise M. Kuper, Esq. > Attorney/Partner > denise@kuperwilson.com > (562) 706-6467 > Paula S. Wilson, Esq. > Attorney/Partner > paula@kuperwilson.com > Indira Chavez > Bilingual Sr. Legal Assistant/Medical Legal Scheduling > indy@kuperwilson.com > Susan Tanaka > Medical Treatment Coordinator > susan@kuperwilson.com > Brett Redmon > Medical Legal Documents and Records Coordinator > brett@kuperwilson.com > Carlos Cabrera > Client Intake Coordinator/Calendar Scheduling > carlos@kuperwilson.com > M. Joseph Rodriguez > Social Security Attorney > joe@kuperwilson.com > > ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: By emailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es). This is necessitated during the declared National Emergency due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic because this office will be working remotely, and not able to send physical mail as usual, therefore, service of all correspondence, pleadings, and discovery from our office will primarily be delivered via electronic mail only. We will provide a physical copy, upon request only, when we return to the office at the conclusion of the national emergency. > > Going forward, we authorize you serve all documents upon our office via electronic mail only, as well, to the extent possible. If you have an objection to this emergency policy, or if you require a formal stipulation, please let us know as soon as possible. Please be advised that we may challenge service of any document by U.S. Mail that prejudice our client’s rights. Thank you and be well. > > 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. > > From: Ullasini Joy Dholakia (lawnet listserver) > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:07 AM > To: Statewide List Service > Subject: Re: [lawnet] SBA - Payroll Protection Program > > List: lawnet Sent By: Ullasini Joy Dholakia > Reply To Sender > Reply To List > Search< https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caaa.org%2Findex.cfm%3Fpg%3Dsearch&data=02%7C01%7Cdenise%40denisekuper.com%7Caf493c9110d04428b8de08d7ec684a47%7C2d02504a0fbd4bcb857aca72f98edd91%7C1%7C0%7C637237804993808207&sdata=jfM982SJgNmbDjrmqFoU7FFRvLEjtkgKkYM1xyPh18Y%3D&reserved=0 > > Settings< https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caaa.org%2Findex.cfm%3Fpg%3Dlistviewer%26lsAction%3DlistSettings&data=02%7C01%7Cdenise%40denisekuper.com%7Caf493c9110d04428b8de08d7ec684a47%7C2d02504a0fbd4bcb857aca72f98edd91%7C1%7C0%7C637237804993818198&sdata=qys9cCwbWQctaEQhQ0L0ItYBe%2BKae9xKpbPvLcqPL%2BQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > Keith. My cell is 7143299270 > Please rush and apply with smaller bank. > Please call if you need any assistance Sending you separate e mail. Joy > > Joy Dholakia > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 27, 2020, at 2:00 PM, Keith A. Seagull (lawnet listserver) > wrote: > > List: lawnet Sent By: Keith A. Seagull > Reply To Sender > Reply To List > Search< https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fu689440.ct.sendgrid.net%2Fls%2Fclick%3Fupn%3DljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cllq0Xyf1Auo6IF50KdbE3Cw8sU_FVjEtvUKFrzJGW-2BG2QiaFj-2Fi19zOBKiEBH0c3GP375SdpiIlIgm5qW8VmPzYa80TwzF6zx2IpCAH-2F7KTLZzBdW3U27NX-2BeCO8NBQF4bVECfqmyxths-2B-2BRBgLG784fmHwKqb19FwjNHbcOaASmZL9vxFcwXMVJo0ji6ZS4GI1S-2BDHz-2BlYV0POz8DTM6hfLKD6550Rr6YXbyINwfnGUKqTZg-3D-3D&data=02%7C01%7Cdenise%40denisekuper.com%7Caf493c9110d04428b8de08d7ec684a47%7C2d02504a0fbd4bcb857aca72f98edd91%7C1%7C0%7C637237804993818198&sdata=gkqfouWqEh2uUt8xrhTiYZdmStevkDvVSZyRc5NzQg0%3D&reserved=0 > > Settings< https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fu689440.ct.sendgrid.net%2Fls%2Fclick%3Fupn%3DljLwIFJOUm1Y8l1fvVh5MsSha1LsRPzMAHoRCnob7cns8DI2HJsoCTaQNHoD7TGmjsLb8QFcrl-2BGfAeUj-2FdfsLIfS-2F4g689YXCu-2BOVECbdQ-3DRaqY_FVjEtvUKFrzJGW-2BG2QiaFj-2Fi19zOBKiEBH0c3GP375SdpiIlIgm5qW8VmPzYa80TTVCM-2BJdDAsUd6N4Q9sSyJ3b-2FImstWGraMhJSfwQW-2B7A4tcTWd-2BoUV-2BmznuTu3YN8zp-2Bre-2FQiWCdS0m6tSLfzDrfNyyw6U8zfsXjRAMJOi-2BHf-2FZQJ9qU4L0T8u9Mvi7KTTJG-2F1wrR7IdwcoLOAEj8xQ-3D-3D&data=02%7C01%7Cdenise%40denisekuper.com%7Caf493c9110d04428b8de08d7ec684a47%7C2d02504a0fbd4bcb857aca72f98edd91%7C1%7C0%7C637237804993828200&sdata=5Lc1i51twfU8kJuZjrGBNfdEx%2FN5J3VKMjU9Ogld5TQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > Has anyone applied for and secured a Payroll Protection Plan loan yet? > Any suggestions? > > Keith Seagull > Pomona > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > [1] http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listBrowse > [2] http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=search&bid=3305 > [3] http://www.caaa.org > [4] mailto:admin@caaa.org > [5] https://www.trialsmith.com/ > [6] http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listviewer&lsAction=listSettings > [7] mailto:leave-22396945-15342261.6f0c6a20b13eddb1a23e4e8d985321f8@lawnet.caaa.org > [8] http://www.caaa.org/index.cfm?pg=listfaqs > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: medi-cal disqualification > From: Ullasini Dholakia > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 23:57:22 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 69 > > Yes unless you prepare special needs trust. Joy > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 29, 2020, at 3:08 PM, Tom Johnson (lawnet listserver) wrote: > > > > > > List: lawnet Sent By: Tom Johnson > > Reply To Sender > > Reply To List > > Search > > Settings > > > > Hello Group > > > > > > > > If my client is on medi-cal. And she is settling out her medical care and receiving only 17,000.00 will that make her ineligible and what can she do to protect her eligibility > > > > > > > > Tom R Johnson Attorney at Law > > > > 865 Howe Ave Suite 205 > > > > Sacramento CA 95825 > > > > (916) 922-9902 > > > > tom@ajlawyers.com > > > > Skype 916-913-9800 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > END OF DIGEST > > --- > You are currently subscribed to lawnet as: dunn.john@comcast.net > To unsubscribe click here: http://lawnet.caaa.org/u?id=15342261.6f0c6a20b13eddb1a23e4e8d985321f8&n=T&l=lawnet&o=22396945 > or send a blank email to leave-22396945-15342261.6f0c6a20b13eddb1a23e4e8d985321f8@lawnet.caaa.org
AI Analysis:
This is only an email header/metadata from a discussion thread about QME doctors. It contains no actual content about ANDREW C PEDTKE's performance or qualifications as a medical evaluator. The subject line indicates QME discussion but no substantive evaluator information is present in this message fragment.
On Dec 23, 2020, at 12:01 PM, Bonnie Binder-Wilson (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:
AI Analysis:
The message explicitly states 'I don't know about Dr. Pedtke, never heard of him.' This provides no information about ANDREW C PEDTKE as a medical evaluator. The message discusses Mark Howard as a QME but contains zero substantive information about Dr. Pedtke's QME/AME evaluation capabilities, quality, or track record.
"Bonnie Binder Wilson" Date: December 23, 2020 2:01:00 PM Subject: RE: QME Doctors - Need advice Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Bonnie Binder-Wilson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I don’t know about Dr. Pedtke, never heard of him. Mark Howard is extremely conservative. He only does back surgeries and if it is any other body part he really doesn’t understand the disability level. On backs, he believes if there has been surgery, the patient has been ‘cured’ and he will give a 5% - 6% WPI. No pain add-on. I try to avoid him as a QME, but OK as a surgeon. 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: Robert Johnson (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 4:30 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] QME Doctors - Need advice List: lawnet Sent By: Robert Johnson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mates, We have two doctors we need to know about: Dr. Andrew Pedtke and Mark W. Howard, both in Salinas, California. Any experience with these two individuals. Need to strike one. Thank you!!!
AI Analysis:
The message mentions 'Pedtke' in the context of QME choice but provides no substantive information about ANDREW C PEDTKE as a medical evaluator. The sender explicitly states 'I do not know Pedtke' and only discusses Pompan's report quality. No QME/AME evaluation information about Pedtke is provided.
I do not know Pedtke. But I recently received a report from Pompan which was reasonable.
AI Analysis:
This is only an email header/metadata showing sender, recipient, and subject line. There is no actual message content discussing Andrew Pedtke's performance as a QME/AME medical evaluator. The subject mentions his name in context of an 'Ortho Panel East Bay' which suggests QME panel context, but without the actual message body, there is no substantive information about his evaluation quality, objectivity, or medical-legal report performance.
On Mar 10, 2021, at 3:16 PM, Sandra Rocca (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote:
AI Analysis:
While the message mentions Dr. Andrew Pedtke in a QME context (attorney asking about striking doctors from panel), there is no substantive information provided about Pedtke's performance as a medical evaluator. The only evaluative content discusses Mark W. Howard, not Andrew Pedtke. The message is a request for information rather than providing QME/AME evaluation details about Pedtke.
December 22, 2020 11:51:00 PM Subject: RE: QME Doctors - Need advice Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Samuel R. Swift Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Howard is a practicing surgeon. Somewhat conservative, but not horrible in the few cases I have seen him. No clue on the other one Samuel R. Swift San Jose, CA From: Robert Johnson (lawnet listserver) <listsender@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 4:30 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] QME Doctors - Need advice List: lawnet Sent By: Robert Johnson Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Mates, We have two doctors we need to know about: Dr. Andrew Pedtke and Mark W. Howard, both in Salinas, California. Any experience with these two individuals. Need to strike one. Thank you!!! Virus-free. www.avast.com
AI Analysis:
While the subject line mentions Andrew Pedtke in the context of a 'Horrible Panel' (suggesting QME panel selection), the message body contains only legal boilerplate text and a brief 'Thanks' with no substantive content about any doctor's performance as a medical evaluator. No actual evaluation information is provided.
Law Office Of Craig W . Morrison , A Professional Corporation Mailing Address : PO Box 7775, #87460 San Francisco, CA 94120-7775 Phone: 415-445-9092 Fax : 415-445-9093 www.morrison.law *************** PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL **************** THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION IS A COMMUNICATION FROM THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG W. MORRISON, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION. THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND IS CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG W. MORRISON, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION. THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY THAT IS THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. Thanks
AI Analysis:
This message only contains header/signature information from Larry Rosenstein's law office requesting input about ANDREW C. PEDTKE as a QME, but provides no actual substantive content about his performance, quality, or track record as a medical evaluator. The subject line indicates it's about QME evaluation, but the message body contains no evaluative information.
From, Larry D. Rosenstein Law Offices of Larry D. Rosenstein 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste 905 WT Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel. (310) 478-5445 Fax (310) 378-7175 e-mail: ldrlaw@earthlink.net This message is intended only for the use of the individual to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged/condidential/and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Law Office of Larry D. Rosenstein
AI Analysis:
This appears to be a header/signature block from Larry Rosenstein's law office requesting input about two orthopedic QMEs including ANDREW C. PEDTKE. While it mentions QME context, the message contains no substantive information about PEDTKE's performance, quality, or track record as a medical evaluator - only identifies him as a QME being inquired about.
From, Larry D. Rosenstein Law Offices of Larry D. Rosenstein 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste 905 WT Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel. (310) 478-5445 Fax (310) 378-7175 e-mail: ldrlaw@earthlink.net This message is intended only for the use of the individual to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged/condidential/and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Law Office of Larry D. Rosenstein