If you did attend the seminar in Los Angeles, I promised you a copy of all of the cases cited during the presentation on Permanent Disability. Here’s the basic outline along with a download link for every case I cited:
There was a great turn out this morning to the “How to Obtain an Accurate PD Rating with the AMA Guides” put on by the Workers’ Compensation Section of the State Bar. We covered a lot of ground in just two hours, from the DEU perspective presented by Annalisa Faina and Barry Knight entitled “Anatomy of Rating”, to Mark Gearheart’s “Substantial Medical Evidence to Support a Permanent Disability Rating,” and my own presentation on “Litigating Ogilvie.” There was a lively discussion on the state of Almaraz/Guzman, Blackledge, and Ogilvie. 12
Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me asking for the cases cited during our presentations. I’ll be uploading them shortly.
Tonight is the “2010 Steve Jimenez Special Recognition Awards” honoring:
Lifetime Achievement: The Honorable Pamela Foust (Ret.)
Judge of the Year: The Honorable Jorja FrankHon. Jorja Frank
Applicant Attorney of the Year: Marc Marcus
Defense Attorney of the Year: Michael Marks
If you’re attending tonight, please stop me and say hello! (I’ve got a name tag and everything)
My prior record for doctor depositions was three in one month. This was not at all intentional. It was probably a number of factors. I tend to take more doctor depositions than most.1Almaraz/Guzman issues are usually best addressed during a deposition. And, lastly it just happened to be an extra busy month.
This week I attended three doctor depositions (two set by myself, one set by a co-defendant). I’d say that pretty well trumps three in a month. :)
A special shout-out goes to Doctors Z, J, and C. Thanks for putting up with me guys. Also, special thanks to Mr. W, my co-Defendant without whom this wouldn’t have been possible.
Where does this leave us? Well, under “Almaraz/Guzman II” we need to get a “strict AMA” and either side can obtain an “Almaraz/Guzman II” opinion from the doctors based upon rebuttal evidence, with the Judge being the final arbiter.
Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice, filed on 10/16/09 is denied. The petition for writ of review is granted as follows: Let a writ of review issue ordering the WCAB to certify & return to this court is official record in Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District & Keenan & Associates, WCAB case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO0254688), not later than 3/25/10. Respondents may file opposition on 3/25/10. Petitioners my reply to the opposition in 20 days after the opposition is filed in this court. The matter will be placed on calendar at a time & place to be specified by court order. Any party desiring oral argument shall so inform this court in writing on 3/25/10 by completing & returning to this court the attached “request for oral argument” form (P, E, WD)
What does this mean for you? Well, it means at least another four months of Almarez/Guzman II.
The fastest I recall a case going from the granting of a Writ of Review to to Order after oral argument was about four months. In that case (Rollick) the Court of Appeals had basically already made up their minds about the issues and had allotted each side 10 minutes of argument. The oral argument in that case took place about four months after the Writ was granted and Order issued almost immediately after argument. However, the issues presented by Almarez/Guzman II are considerably more intricate.
For more analysis on this decision check out the article on WCExec!