Jacqueline Green, vs. General Motors Corporation, Permissibly Self-insured, Administered By

This case is about Jacqueline Green's petition to depose her in a workers' compensation case against General Motors Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, stating that further deposition of the applicant would be unduly burdensome and that the defendant had not demonstrated any reason why the deposition of the applicant was required after her extensive trial testimony. The Board also stated that if, after receipt of the report from the doctor, it appears that there is some important line of inquiry that was not covered in prior deposition or trial testimony, the defendant can again petition for permission to conduct further deposition of the applicant.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By JACQUELINE GREEN, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJACQUELINE GREEN, Applicant,vs.GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ976241 (VNO 0301388)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TODEPOSE APPLICANT            On July 31, 2009, we issued an Opinion and Order Directing Jacqueline Green to AttendMedical Evaluation by Roger S. Sohn, M.D., on October 20, 2009, at 2:00 P.M. We denied permission to applicant’s husband to be present in the examining room or have a court reporter present. We set out the issues that Dr. Sohn was asked to address. We also ordered the parties to meet and agree to the extent possible on what records would be forwarded to Dr. Sohn. We ordered the parties to address a joint letter to Dr. Sohn itemizing the records being sent to him and to send us a copy of the letter at least thirty days prior to the examination.            We have not received a copy of a joint letter to Dr. Sohn. We assume that the parties have not complied with our order. October 20 has now passed, and we sincerely hope that applicant has been examined by Dr. Sohn. If the examination has been delayed because of failure of the parties to follow our orders, we will consider sanctions against both parties pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 at our earliest opportunity.            Meanwhile, on September 22, 2009, defendant filed a Notice of Taking Deposition of Applicant; Notice for Production of Documents (Part I). Defendant scheduled the deposition of , applicant for October 9, 2009, at defense counsel’s office, which is 70 miles from applicant’s home. Attached to the Notice is a notice for production of documents that is a veritable laundry list of documents, most of which appear utterly unrelated to the issues currently pending in applicant’s case.            On September 28, 2009, defendant filed a Petiti

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.