In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

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.

In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby octool on Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:39 pm

Does anyone have any idea who pushed for this happen all of a sudden? Seems like an odd time bring hearings back with Delta out there. Was CAAA pushing for this? Defense firms missing billing? The judges?
octool
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby LawAdvocate on Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:44 am

We need to get back to in-person hearings, you can read the public comments, the sentiment was equal from the defense bar and the applicant bar. There is a reason we appeared in person before - so that judges could facilitate discussions, opine on the law and broker some informal deals. This is not happening in the call in system, the pebble keeps getting kicked down the road to everyone's detriment. Injured workers are suffering longer than in the past while attorney argue minimal technicalities of the law. If we do not go back to in-person hearings as fast as possible, this will eventually result in great harm to the timely delivery of benefits. That is all that matters, that benefits are timely delivered.

We know how to be safe - get vaccinated, wear masks continue social distancing and wash your hands. We are a legal industry that relies on facts and evidence. The facts and evidence tell us how to be safe in the face of what will continue to be an ongoing pandemic well into 2022 due to misinformation about the vaccinations.
LawAdvocate
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby octool on Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:01 am

LawAdvocate wrote:....broker some informal deals. This is not happening in the call in system, the pebble keeps getting kicked down the road to everyone's detriment. Injured workers are suffering longer than in the past while attorney argue minimal technicalities of the law.


Really? This has not been my experience at all. I find it much easier to resolve cases because people are not waiting until they show up to a hearing to look at their file or talk to their client for the first time. Cases have been easier to resolve informally. Your argument feeds the old methodology of showing up at a hearing and actually looking at your file and then discussing the case after that. I have always found that to be a waste of time. Going back to that system while risking the health of people seems like an odd choice. If an applicant catches COVID while at a hearing, which I promise will happen many times, is that industrial?
octool
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby LawAdvocate on Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:59 am

Yes really. Your practice might not mirror our practice. We have a caseload heavy in catastrophic cases and we have a defense bar in LA County that is resistant to anything to move a case. Hell, I can't get their stupid adjusters to timely authorize a validly elected PTP who is in the MPN without filing for an expedited. I swear they like to throw good money after bad. If I was an employer and I saw a DOR filed on this issue, I would be livid.

Then we come to the worthless MPN lists, where no physician is willing to take the case and the lists are padded with UCLA physicians who for the most part will NOT take workers' comp. The case is too complex, the case is too old, etc. So I whittle the MPN list down to less than 3 physicians, attaching the explanation why the carrier has an access issue and viola - I get a letter rejecting the non-MPN PTP because they are not in the MPN. Duh, did you read my letter. I swear if it is more than 10 sentences that the average claims examiner does not know how to read and comprehend.

I could write a book. Before we went before the judge and discussed the issue. The judge advised what they felt was legally correct and twisted defendants arms.

No one should be allowed at the WCAB unless they are vaccinated. If you are not vaccinate and are not in the .03% of the population where it is medically counter indicated, you shouldn't be at the WCAB.

My clients rarely attend hearings anyway. There is no reason for them to be there. If they are not vaccinated, I will for sure be advising them to stay the hell away from the WCAB, which should be the position of both the defense and applicant's bar.

We can't stay in this holding pattern forever and we need to get on with it. Vaccinate above all else, mask, socially distance, and wash your hands. I am immunocompromised, I am careful.
LawAdvocate
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby Manila on Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:17 am

Concur about insurers, in fact, having very very few actual doctors willing to take comp patients when the issue is psychological/psychiatric. The insurers know this, I suspect they are delighted there are no doctors in this area in their MPN so they don't have to pay the bill and they additionally refuse to authorize non-network psychologists and psychiatrists - even in instances where ones can be found. There also have been a instances when a non-MPN psychologist or psychiatrist agreed to see comp patients but at the OMFS rate versus the discounted network rate. The additional $20-$30 dollar per session for the OMFS rate then is a deal breaker because the insurer refuses to pay a non-MPN doctor anything above the network rate that includes PPO discounts. All of this, of course, needlessly prolongs cases and most of all foolishly deprives patients who need the treatment.
Manila
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:33 pm

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby octool on Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:51 pm

LawAdvocate wrote:No one should be allowed at the WCAB unless they are vaccinated. If you are not vaccinate and are not in the .03% of the population where it is medically counter indicated, you shouldn't be at the WCAB.


So mandatory vaccinations and vaccine passports or the attorney will have to sub out on the file? I am sure that will go over quite well.
octool
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby LawAdvocate on Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:53 am

Are you sure you are in the legal professsion?

Read Jacobson v. Massachutsetts and Zucht v. King. It is constitutional to mandate a vaccination.

You had a vaccine "passport" when you went to school in the US and yes, the vaccinations were mandatory. You have a driving "passport."

You have to wear a seat belt and you can't drive drunk either and you have to show your age "passport"

Did you go to law school or skip Con Law? Your personal rights end when others rights start. In the case of public health, you do not have the right to walk around infecting the public. See the law surrounding typhoid Mary who refused to wash her hands.

Yes, I expect people who are in the law to follow the valid facts and evidence when making decisions. I expect you to even stand up and educate your clients to do the same so they don't endanger others, including work comp physicians. There is zero evidence against the vaccine. The only time it is not recommended is if you are in an age group that has not yet secured approval or if you had a severe allergic reaction to the first vaccine, like anaphylactic shock, not a mere rash or itching.

You don't deserve the privilege to engage in any aspect of the legal profession if you fall for fake news sources and you won't even step up and protect the people around you.
LawAdvocate
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby jpod on Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:34 pm

While I think there was a more civil way to make the points you made I wholeheartedly agree with the factual statements you raised about vaccine and other mandates. I would add that in terms of obtaining a driver's license, I still think the law says there is no right to a license, it is a privilege which can be taken away for various reasons, some of which you listed.

Unfortunately we have another pandemic in this country, I call it: "I know better even though I own no credentials" virus. It's rampant, and at times I even have to check myself when I find myself reacting after hearing/reading about an issue of public importance in which I have little to no training or credentials that give weight to my uninformed, lay opinion. I keep reminding myself to accept the proposition I am not qualified to opine and need to defer to those who are qualified.

Just because I have college and graduate degrees does not mean I am qualified to opine on issues outside my areas of expertise.

We need a vaccine for the IKBETIONC Virus too.
jpod
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:21 pm

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby LawAdvocate on Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:42 am

I disagree, you wouldn't be civil if someone was holding a gun to your head and that is what is happening in this situation. I am consistent in calling out when the emperor is wearing no clothes and I don't have to be civil about it. I am going to argue like the litigator I am. The post thinking that people should not have to be vaccinated to appear at the WCAB was erroneous and false. I called it what it was, because it's not my job to take care of all of the children grown tall out there who failed to get educated.

If you have a college degree you should be able to ascertain between facts and evidence. Vaccine understanding is high school level biology, it isn't that tough. I am a legal researcher. I am a litigator. I don't need to defer to anyone on much. I am fully capable of researching most topics and coming to a basic if not better understanding. I wouldn't take out someone's appendix but that does not mean I am not conversant as to the basic process. I am.

So tell me what your attorneys do all day? They aren't pointing out flaws in logic in your medical reporting? They aren't telling you if the medical reporting is substantial or if it is speculative or conclusory? They aren't doctors and the attorneys/hearing reps and paralegals in the trenches who keep pushing themselves further to understand the medical science are the people you should hire. If you defer to the experts, that means I need a physician in my office to tell me what's what - that would be expensive and ridiculous.

So you defer all you want, we are experts in the legal field and in the basics if not a little more of medical science. It doesn't take a college degree in epidemiology to understand how vaccines work and why they are necessary in the pandemic.
LawAdvocate
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

Postby jpod on Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:52 am

You miss my point. I can understand I need a vaccine. But I am not qualified to overrule those with degrees in public health that set public health policy. If they say masks are needed I have no standing to overrule them. I believe Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a decision last year the Courts were not in a position to overrule County public health authorities.
jpod
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:21 pm

Next

Return to Legal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests