Need help. (California)

[stevehauser]

1) Need some info. At a lien conference I was in a negotiation. The applicant lives out of state. I was proposing going to trial because all medicals said aoe/coe and the defense atty stated that without a live witness I could not win. Any truth to this position.

2)Anyone familiar with a retirement case involving a CHP officer named Coenig? That is all I know. I need a cite. Thanks!

[jonbrissman]

If all medicals said the injury was industrial, it is likely an accepted claim. In such a case, you should prevail at a lien trial without the applicant being present to testify.

If the claim was contested, you need to ascertain the basis of the denial. Certainly it cannot be a denial based on a medical issue if all the reports indicate injury AOE/COE. But if there is another issue, such as the six-months-employment threshold or whether the trigger was a sudden and extraordinary event for psychiatric claims, you will not prevail without applicant's testimony. You must plan your trial strategy based on what defenses are to be raised -- some will require live testimony.

Your question needs to spell out the variables of this case before anyone can evaluate the truth of defendant's statement.

There is no case involving anyone named Coenig in the California Compensation Cases database, and none that was heard at any of the Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court. If the spelling is correct, the case was likely decided at the administrative-law level, or perhaps at the Superior Court level. Regardless of what the Coenig case might say, it is not precedential.

JCB

[stevehauser]

Thanks Mr. Briss,

The case-in-chief was settled via a small C&R. Probably because my LTD lien was going to eat up the majority of the ttd recovery.

Thanks for the response on Coenig as well!