Maria Resendiz V Tambro (California) (California) (Californi

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: Maria Resendiz V Tambro (California) (California) (Californi

Postby vampireinthenight on Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:16 am

Hey York, good to see you. Funny, I was just thinking of your posts the other day and was wondering if you retired yet... :D Yeah, things have slowed. Whenever you go this long without a major statutory overhaul, there is less and less to discuss. We had a few twists in 2013, but it's been 6 years now since those were rolled out.

Sure, if a report fails to meet minimum standards, it could be reportable. However, I think this is more rare and represents a more extreme failure.

A QME can fail at trial in a number of ways. If a QME has not reviewed all of the records or relies on a history from the IW that turns out to be unreliable, the report can become non-substantial, through no fault of the QME, even if the report meets all required criteria.

Sometimes the report fails on something like a Guzman application that is not convincing and the strict rating is used instead. Again, I don't think in this situation the report would fail to meet minimum requirements. Would a chiro report on a post-

Although we ditched the dueling QMEs, many trials have the PTP vs QME and sometimes the PTP is taken as more persuasive over the QME. So my point is that there are ways for a QME to not be followed but not necessarily "reportable" to the AD.
User avatar
Posts: 1128
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:53 am


Return to Legal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest