just checking - communication with AME (California)

[fernrep]

It appears that southern and northern CA have different ways of handling this. Is is appropriate, in SC, to follow LC 4062.3 by sending a letter to the AME and, at the same time, serving it on the opposing party? Or do all letters need to be joint? If so, what if one side or the other does not agree that such a letter is necessary and will not sign?

[jpod]

Since SB 899 i do not believe there is a basis for claiming letters should be joint. The code is specific that the parties shall serve their written communications on the opposing party 20 days before the examination (LC 4062.3(e)(2) and that the AME shall list what was sent by each party (4062.3(d)(1).

[stevepsca]

what if one side or the other does not agree that such a letter is necessary and will not sign?

Either party has the opportunity to object to non-medicals ... I don't think it matters that opposing party objects to medicals provided. Or refuses to sign a joint letter.

4063.3(b) Information that a party proposes to provide to the qualified
medical evaluator selected from a panel shall be served on the
opposing party 20 days before the information is provided to the
evaluator. If the opposing party objects to consideration of
nonmedical records within 10 days thereafter, the records shall not
be provided to the evaluator. Either party may use discovery to
establish the accuracy or authenticity of nonmedical records prior to
the evaluation.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =4060-4068

4063.3(e) addresses communication with the AME/PQME from a ''panel''. Don't know that it makes any difference that the parties agree to an AME who is not from a panel.

(e) All communications with an agreed medical evaluator or a
qualified medical evaluator selected from a panel before a medical
evaluation shall be in writing and shall be served on the opposing
party 20 days in advance of the evaluation. Any subsequent
communication with the medical evaluator shall be in writing and
shall be served on the opposing party when sent to the medical
evaluator.

[vampireinthenight]

Agree with Jpod. As a practical matter, if you are not sure if your letter is objectionable or not, or if you do not know your opposing counsel well, you may want to server it on the opposition first, to avoid a messy situation or a hearing which may be unneccessary. You may end up at deposition instead if your letter has a bunch of debatable legal conclusions.