This case is about Martin Trapero, who sustained an admitted industrial injury on March 3, 2000. The parties agreed to use multiple Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs) to resolve the case, including an agreement to use Dr. Thompson as their AME in orthopedics. On December 29, 2009, applicant's attorney noticed Dr. Thompson's deposition for January 11, 2010. Approximately five to eight minutes before the deposition began, applicant's attorney handed defense counsel a vocational evaluation report dated January 5, 2010, prepared by Mr. Mark Remas. The report was presented to Dr. Thompson after the deposition began. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) concluded that applicant's attorney violated Labor Code section 4062.

NORTH AMERICAN PNEUMATICS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND MARTIN TRAPERO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARTIN TRAPERO, Applicant,vs.NORTH AMERICAN PNEUMATICS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant.Case No. ADJ659011 (SDO 0266829)(San Diego District Office)OPINION AND ORDERS VACATING ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION, DISMISSINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING REMOVAL ON BOARDMOTION, AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            On June 30, 2011, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues.1 This is our decision after reconsideration.            In the Findings and Order of April 11, 2011, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) concluded that there was no violation of Labor Code section 4062.3 when applicant’s attorney handed a recently- procured vocational evaluation report to defense counsel a few minutes before the deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)2 was to begin. The report was presented to the AME during the deposition.            Defendant,. State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), filed a timely petition for reconsideration. Defendant contended that: (1) applicant’s attorney’s “hand delivery method” of service was not a legally acceptable method of service intended by the Legislature under section 4062.3; (2) the 1 The Appeals Board recognizes that this case has been pending on reconsideration for some time. During that time, this case received significant attention in the interest of resolving issues of statewide concern. Ultimately, however, it was determined that a future case might better serve the Board’s purposes.2 Under Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) Rule 1(f), an AME is a physician selected by agreement between the claims administrator, or if none the employer, and a represented employee to resolve disputed medical issues referred by the parties in a workers’ compensation proceeding. Under DWC Rule 1(s), “evaluators” inc

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.