Judy L. Karas vs. Los Rios Community College District, Permissibly Self-Insured

In this case, Judy L. Karas, an employee of Los Rios Community College District, sought reconsideration of an order denying her petition for an order making the panel QME report inadmissible. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, as the disputed order was not a final order from which reconsideration may properly be sought. However, on their own motion, the Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and issued a new order allowing the parties to obtain from the Administrative Director a new panel of three QME evaluators from which they shall select a new QME for this matter.

Los Rios Community College District, Permissibly Self-Insured Judy L. Karas WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJUDY L. KARAS, Applicant,vs.    LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant.Case No. SAC 0355929OPINION AND ORDERSDISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION; GRANTINGREMOVAL ON BOARD MOTIONAND DECISION AFTERREMOVAL            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Denying Petition For Order Making Panel QME Report Inadmissible of November 9, 2007, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in essence, that the report of C. David Petersen, M.D., a qualified medical evaluator (QME) selected by the parties from a panel of three QME physicians, is not inadmissible, pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.51, even though it was not timely submitted by Dr. Petersen. The WCJ, therefore, in essence, ordered that applicant’s request for a new panel of QME physicians is denied.            Applicant contends that she is entitled to a new panel of QME physicians, arguing that Dr. Petersen’s comprehensive medical-legal report is untimely, that Dr. Petersen improperly engaged in ex parte communications with defendant, and that applicant objected to the report prior to receipt of the report.            Defendant did not file an answer to applicant’s petition for reconsideration.            The WCJ    did not prepare a Report and Recommendation because he is no longer serving as a WCJ    at the district office.I.            We have considered the allegations raised in applicant’s petition for reconsideration. [h3]1             [size=1]All further statutory references are to the Labor Code.[/size][/h3] ,             Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss applicant’s petition for reconsideration, as the disputed order is not a final order from which reconsideration may properly be sought. However, on our own motion pursuant to section 5310, we will grant re

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.