interpreter (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.

Re: interpreter (California)

Postby steve appell on Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:54 am

Well I see a lot of confusion here so it is not a black & white issue. The start of your post says "applicant did not advise, but apparently intended to hire his own." Now you say "The AA intended to hire his own and therefore intentionally did not advise the def to hire one." ........ So which is it?

Did AA really intentionally mislead you (IE fraud) or did he "apparently" mislead you (mistake), or can we simply chalk this up to an unfortunate breakdown in communication?
Steve

appellandassociates.com
6311 Van Nuys Bl #480
Van Nuys, Ca 91401
wcexaminer@aol.com


Check out 'WORK COMP MATTERS" Free PODCAST below
https://www.workcompcentral.com/educati ... ype=online
User avatar
steve appell
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm

Re: interpreter (California)

Postby feelin'it on Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:02 pm

If the AA has the right to retain the interpreter for the exam the AA either intended to retain the interpreter and failed to do so, or failed to advise the def to retain the interpreter for this exam as required by law- its one or the other, both AA error. that seems pretty black and white.
feelin'it
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:09 pm

Re: interpreter (California)

Postby LawAdvocate on Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:20 pm

Not necessarily AA error, if Defense was on notice of language barrier at anytime, most likely at the deposition or through billing for interpreters, Defense error. Requiring continued notice for need for interpreter is bad faith and that is how the WCAB will find, because I have seen that finding. Sending written notice indicating advise if you need an interpreter in English is not enough either. You note your physical and/or computer file. The secretaries at every defense firm know to do this.

Since there are no laws regulating this, the judges turn to pattern and practice. Whoever schedules the AME is responsible for scheduling or assuring anything else required for the completion of the AME evaluation, including but not limited to interpreter, transportation, housing, meals, incidentals, etc. A telephone call to the AA office was required to determine what is needed. So who scheduled the AME eval without scheduling an interpreter? They are the party responsible for payment of the missed appointment fee.

That is how it works at the WCAB, been there, done that.

Sounds like the defense firm needs to ante up to save a client. Either that or the AA will just demand more of a settlement on the back end so he gets enough of a fee to pay the AME, another costly and bad idea for defense - because it takes another $3,500 in settlement money to produce a $500 missed appointment fee.
LawAdvocate
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:55 am

Previous

Return to Legal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron