PTP v. PQME work restrictions (California)

This category is meant for discussion of technical legal issues in workers' compensation. If you are an injured worker, do not ask questions here. Go to the Injured Workers' forum.

PTP v. PQME work restrictions (California)

Postby wcscout on Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:14 pm

If work restrictions are in contrast between, is there guidance to protect the employer as to what work restrictions to follow
wcscout
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: PTP v. PQME work restrictions (California) (California)

Postby spreare on Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:38 pm

Interesting question. They are both licensed and both opinions are somewhat binding -- but then they vary (presumably the ER is making an issue that the PQME restriction allows for more duties otherwise why the gripe?) I would say that legally speaking an ER can probably require the EE to comply with the restriction from the PQME and terminate TTD benefits if EE fails to comply. Otherwise what is the point of a PQME? Now, of course the PTP might be clinically correct, maybe did a more complete job in e evaluating, or there was a recent change in EE condition that requires a variance or increased restriction. I would presume that an ER would be safe to require adherence to the PQME restrictions. But also I would presume the IW would have a right to a supplemental report from the PQME to address the issue.

Edit: The PTP can also rebut and IW can go to the WCAB. But until that time I would presume the ER is safe to adhere to PQME report.
spreare
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: PTP v. PQME work restrictions (California)

Postby vampireinthenight on Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:04 am

It goes without saying, but look for a change in condition between the reports. If there is a change, then arguably the last in time would be the most accurate. QMEs are generally more thorough and convincing. This is more of an employment issue than a straight WC issue. The ER should make sure they are consistent and not violating ADA.
User avatar
vampireinthenight
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:53 am

Re: PTP v. PQME work restrictions (California)

Postby LawAdvocate on Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:41 am

Unless the work restriction issue has been resolved by a trier-of-fact as to which medical reporting is more convincing, ADA law requires you to use the MOST STRINGENT restrictions. That simple. The IP Meeting facilitator should be well aware of this issue.

The smart AA, if the EE wants to return to work stipulates to the less stringent if his client agrees, because the more stringent the work restrictions, the more likely EE is knocked out of their job.

So the question becomes what is the EE's goal. EEs know what they can and cannot due when pushed to the wall, no crap - do you want your job back? Fine, which of these work restrictions seems right to you? Can you x, can you y, are you darn sure?
LawAdvocate
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: PTP v. PQME work restrictions (California)

Postby spreare on Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:07 pm

I am dealing w a PQME where in spite of chronic shoulder issues and long-standing work restriction the UPS driver cont to work bc he wants that $35/hour plus fat overtime. crises is the mother of ingenuity. I am not sure why the UPS cont to employ him with the restrictions in place other than that EE cont to fulfill the essential job function -- necessitating someone with a RC tear to cont slinging 400 parcels a day. He has basically told his Sup, " I'll do the job just let me work!."
spreare
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: PTP v. PQME work restrictions (California)

Postby LawAdvocate on Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:52 pm

UPS is a coveted gig. Union, pension, all the things Unions got us. Can't blame the IW, if you have a family to support, you will do a lot of things to make sure that happens.
LawAdvocate
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:55 am


Return to Legal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron