By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Decide, Los Angeles WCAB
Disclaimer: The fabric and any opinions contained on this article are solely these of the authors and aren’t the opinions of the Division of Industrial Relations, Division of Staff’ Compensation, or the WCAB, or some other entity or particular person. The supplies are meant to be a reference instrument solely and aren’t meant to be relied upon as authorized recommendation.
Within the upcoming and up to date 2025 Version of California Staff’ Compensation Discovery, a part of Rassp & Herlick, California Staff’ Compensation Regulation (LexisNexis), we’ve got, amongst different new options, added a brand new part, “Continuously Requested Questions,” about discovery in employees’ compensation instances. We offer 27 questions and the solutions that come up through the course of discovery in formal employees’ compensation litigation. Beneath you can see 10 of them as a sneak preview. In case you don’t already subscribe to the Rassp & Herlick treatise or the Herlick Handbook, contact Robin.E.Kobayashi@lexisnexis.com to get on the record for early notification when the 2025 Version of the invention guide is opened up for pre-sale.
1. When can events start the invention course of in a employees’ compensation case?
The submitting of the Software for Adjudication of Declare initiates the invention course of. As soon as a Declare Type (DWC-1) has been despatched to an employer, the employer stage investigation ought to happen by the claims administrator with cooperation from the employer. California Code of Rules, title 8, part 10109 mandates an obligation to analyze a declare instantly upon receipt of a declare type or data of a declare from any supply both from the worker or their consultant, no matter whether or not the WCAB has jurisdiction over the declare. Formal discovery equivalent to depositions can not happen till the Software is filed with the WCAB [see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10450(b)]. Nonetheless, in unrepresented instances, the claims administrator might provoke the QME course of on the unrepresented monitor pursuant to Labor Code part 4062.1 with out first submitting an Software for Adjudication of Declare on the WCAB.
2. What are the commonest discovery instruments utilized in California employees’ compensation instances?
As soon as an Software for Adjudication of Declare has been filed with the WCAB and an ADJ quantity assigned to the case, formal discovery can start. The commonest discovery consists of initiation of the medical-legal course of to find out compensability of a declare; or everlasting incapacity and apportionment; or disputes over elements of physique injured, momentary whole incapacity advantages and incapacity standing; pursuant to Labor Code Sections 4060, 4061, and 4062, respectively. Depositions of the injured employee, potential employer witnesses, and definitely of physicians generally and frequently happen in employees’ compensation instances. As well as, subpoena duces tecum of employment (personnel and payroll data) and medical data are routine.
3. Who pays for discovery in California employees’ compensation instances?
The employer or its claims administrator pays for discovery based mostly on Labor Code part 5811, which permits a “price petition” or Petition for Prices that allow an injured employee’s lawyer to have the price of subpoenas reimbursed on to the lawyer or the agent employed by the lawyer to acquire data through subpoena after written calls for for particular data weren’t complied with by the employer or claims administrator inside 30 days of the demand. Deposition prices of a doctor or vocational knowledgeable which are superior by the injured employee’s lawyer are reimbursed through a Petition for Prices [see Lab. Code, § 5811].
4. Does an lawyer receives a commission for his or her time spent making ready for and attending on the deposition of the injured employee?
The one factor about working towards employees’ compensation legislation in comparison with working towards private damage legislation is that attorneys who symbolize injured employees earlier than the WCAB receives a commission hourly for the preparation for and attendance at a deposition of the injured employee. This is without doubt one of the most unusual points of working towards employees’ compensation legislation in California. Labor Code part 5710 particularly permits depositions of injured employees to be performed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Code of Civil Process part 2025 et seq. as in civil actions. As well as, the injured employee’s lawyer receives an hourly fee for the preparation for and attendance on the deposition. California Code of Rules, title 8, part 10547 units forth the necessities for the injured employee’s lawyer to hunt what are known as “Labor Code part 5710 lawyer’s charges” from the employer or claims administrator. The lawyer’s charges which are awarded are discretionary by the choose who evaluations a Petition for Labor Code Part 5710 Charges and don’t come out of the injured employee’s share of a settlement or judicial resolution on the case in chief. Hourly charges aren’t uniform all through the State’s 23 WCAB District Workplaces and might differ from $250 an hour (for a listening to consultant supervised by an lawyer) to $650 an hour (for an authorized specialist lawyer) relying on the legislation agency, the expertise of an lawyer showing on the deposition, the geographic location of the WCAB workplace, and the price of doing enterprise in a specific a part of the State.
5. Are deposition transcripts admissible in a employees’ compensation case?
Typically talking, sure. Counsel is reminded that the formal guidelines of proof don’t apply in employees’ compensation litigation [see Lab. Code, § 5708], and a part of that philosophy signifies that deposition transcripts of physicians, vocational consultants, and different consultants are allowed in lieu of reside testimony. Stay testimony of consultants are allowed solely upon a exhibiting of fine trigger. In 40 years of working towards employees’ compensation legislation, this writer can consider just one time a employees’ compensation choose allowed a doctor (an impartial health worker) to testify reside at a trial.
Excerpts of deposition testimony is allowed to be admitted into proof for impeachment functions of any witness who testifies at trial. Excerpts of deposition testimony that probably could also be used on the time of trial requires that the propounding social gathering record your entire deposition transcript as an exhibit through the Necessary Settlement Convention when the Pre-Trial Convention Assertion and Exhibit record are ready by the events. Counsel ought to designate particular pages and contours inside a deposition for use for impeachment functions.
6. What are the totally different strategies to acquire data in reference to a employees’ compensation case?
First, by a signed Authorization for Launch of Medical and Different Data that’s obtained from the injured employee both by a claims administrator or supplied by an injured employee’s lawyer. One other widespread methodology to acquire data is by a subpoena duces tecum which is issued by the WCAB underneath the signature of every Presiding Decide at every district workplace. Counsel is reminded that data might be obtained (1) informally by a requirement letter to opposing counsel, (2) by subpoena duces tecum (SDT), (3) by subpoena of data with private look, or (4) by discover to look and produce at a listening to. So as to have a sound subpoena, a written demand for data have to be issued first, permitting the opposing social gathering 30 days to provide data voluntarily whether it is suspected that social gathering already has the data.
For instance, protection counsel might have the injured employee’s personnel file from the employer, and, upon demand from the injured employee’s lawyer, protection counsel ought to ship copies, in any other case a sound subpoena duces tecum may concern for the employer’s data on the employer or claims administrator’s expense. Equally, if the injured employee’s lawyer calls for copies of notices despatched by the claims administrator to the injured employee previous to the lawyer being retained because the injured employee’s counsel, the claims administrator ought to serve these data with out the necessity for a subpoena.
7. What forms of paperwork are normally subpoenaed in a employees’ compensation case?
An injured employee’s lawyer normally will subpoena payroll paperwork, personnel information, medical data, investigation experiences (obtained by the employer and never by the protection lawyer), and medical data. Generally Materials Security Information Sheets from an employer are obtained by an injured employee’s lawyer if publicity to poisonous supplies on the job are alleged. In reality, in a single case, this writer ordered a hospital to provide all data of any affected person who was handled on the hospital over a six-year interval who examined constructive for Hepatitis C an infection (because the injured employee employed by the hospital was a phlebotomist who contracted Hepatitis C and claimed it was work-related). This writer ordered the names of the sufferers to be redacted upon service of them on opposing counsel. It turned on the market had been 226 sufferers who examined constructive throughout that interval, and legal responsibility for the phlebotomist’s Hepatitis C an infection was ultimately accepted.
Protection counsel will acquire data of prior work-related and non-work-related accidents, medical experiences, settlement paperwork, personnel data (previous and current employers), and WCIRB data (which point out insurance coverage protection for employers that do not need a certificates of permission to self-insure).
8. How do I object to a subpoena that I consider is topic to an objection, and what occurs to it?
Code of Civil Process part 2020.410 signifies that if a celebration objects to a subpoena within the type of a Petition to Quash Subpoena, there may be an automated keep of implementing the subpoena pending additional motion by a employees’ compensation choose. Many judges will concern an Order Quashing Subpoena and a few judges is not going to due to the automated keep of implementing the subpoena because of the Petition to Quash. As soon as a Petition to Quash is filed and served, the requesting social gathering has the burden of submitting a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed for a listening to on the WCAB workplace having venue to have a choose decide whether or not disputed data are to be produced and underneath what circumstances or limitations.
Most objections to subpoenas embrace (1) there was no prior written demand for the data; (2) 30 days had not run from the time of a written demand for the data; (3) the data had been already served by opposing counsel or their shopper; (4) the subpoena and request is overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive; (5) the data being subpoenaed is not going to result in admissible proof at trial.
Genuinely, little or no litigation over subpoenas happen within the day-to-day proceedings on the WCAB, since most events and counsel know the scope of discovery allowed by the employees’ compensation judges when the scope of a subpoena is in concern.
9. What’s the course of to acquire one or multiple further QME panels?
California Code of Rules, title 8, part 37.1 supplies that an extra QME panel might be obtained by settlement of the events or upon a exhibiting of fine trigger. The Appeals Board has indicated in noteworthy panel selections that an current QME can defer to different specialists if requested in regards to the want for a number of further QME panels which are outdoors the medical specialty of the unique QME chosen underneath Labor Code part 4062.2 [see Bautista v. Beauty Box, 2022 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 268 (Appeals Board noteworthy panel decision)].
In Bautista, the Appeals Board panel said:
Right here, applicant seeks the issuance of further panels in neurology and psychology to judge her claimed damage. Orthopedic QME Dr. Getelman has indicated that he would defer to specialists in these medical fields outdoors of his specialty.2 (Ex. Y, Deposition of Mark Getelman, M.D., dated January 27, 2022, at 16:13.)
Labor Code part 4062.2 governs the method to acquire a medical-legal analysis from a panel QME in a represented case if the events don’t agree on an agreed medical evaluator (AME). (Lab. Code, § 4062.2.) Defendant has denied legal responsibility for applicant’s claimed accidents. (Ex A, Discover of Denial of Declare, dated November 9, 2020.) Within the absence of further panels in neurology and psychology, applicant is prevented from conducting the medical-legal discovery obligatory to find out compensability for the claimed damage. We subsequently agree with applicant that further QME panels in neurology and psychology are acceptable…
…[T]he WCJ has broad discretion underneath the Labor Code and underneath our Guidelines regarding discovery, “to concern such interlocutory orders regarding discovery as he determines are essential to insure the complete and honest adjudication of the matter earlier than him, to expedite litigation and to safeguard in opposition to unfair shock.” (Hardesty v. McCord & Holdren (1976) 41 Cal. Comp. Circumstances 111 [1976 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 2406].)
The Appeals Board panel went on to debate that pointless requests for extra QME panels could also be an abuse of discovery and topic to sanctions by a choose in opposition to a celebration who has no legit foundation for requesting further panels. The present Appeals Board is liberally construing the idea of “good trigger” to quantity merely to a different doctor, indicating that they’re deferring the necessity for extra panels to the WCAB. Does this imply that counsel can simply allege orthopedic, psyche, and inner medical circumstances in a declare type and Software for Adjudication of Declare with none medical proof of alleged medical circumstances underlying the case? The Appeals Board is adopting liberal building underneath Labor Code part 3202 by telling the authorized group {that a} request for extra QME panels falls underneath a really broad definition of “good trigger.”
See additionally Boyd v. Visser [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 117 (Appeals Board noteworthy panel decision)]. The same concern arose within the Boyd case—what constitutes good trigger for extra QME panels? The Appeals Board panel once more, one 12 months after Bautista was determined, said:
Right here, applicant seeks the issuance of further panels in neurology, urology, inner medication and psychiatry to judge her claimed damage. (Petition, at 4:12.) Orthopedic QME Dr. Aval has indicated that he would defer to specialists in these medical fields outdoors of his specialty. (Ex. A, report of Soheil Aval, M.D., dated August 12, 2021, at p. 10.)
Labor Code part 4062.2 governs the method to acquire a medical-legal analysis from a panel QME in a represented case if the events don’t agree on an agreed medical evaluator (AME). (Lab. Code, § 4062.2.) Defendant has denied legal responsibility for applicant’s claimed accidents to the interior system, psyche, head, mind, and sexual dysfunction. (Minutes, at 2:3.) Within the absence of further panels in related specialties, applicant is successfully prevented from conducting the medical-legal discovery essential to a dedication the character and extent of the admitted damage. We subsequently agree with applicant that further QME panels are acceptable. (See McClune v. Staff’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal. Comp. Cases 261]; Tyler v. Staff’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal. Comp. Cases 924]; Lab. Code, §§ 5701, 5906 [the Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues].) Following our evaluate of the medical document, in addition to applicant’s trial testimony, we’re persuaded that QME evaluations in inner medication and psychiatry are affordable and obligatory. The QMEs in these specialties might then deal with the necessity for extra panels in neurology, urology, or some other specialties that could be indicated. …
The Boyd case differs from the Bautista case as a result of, right here, the injured employee testified at trial about indicators, signs, and complaints he needed to elements of his physique that didn’t contain simply orthopedic associated complaints. The Appeals Board had a transparent document that justified the extra QME panels based mostly on what the unique QME mentioned, in addition to based mostly on the injured employee’s trial testimony.
10. If an AME or QME turns into unavailable because of sickness, dying, retirement, or different legit cause, are their experiences and/or deposition testimony despatched to the brand new QME or AME who replaces them?
The reply is “sure,” assuming the experiences and deposition transcript of the now unavailable medical-legal doctor had been beforehand admitted into proof. In Montes v. Westside Youngsters’s Heart [(2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 1092, 2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 121 (Appeals Board noteworthy panel decision)], an Appeals Board panel was confronted with the problem of whether or not the experiences of AME Alan Sanders can or can’t be despatched to a QME or AME in orthopedic surgical procedure in mild of his retirement and unavailability for additional reporting or deposition.
Within the Montes case, Dr. Sanders’ experiences had beforehand been admitted into proof at a previous trial continuing. His unavailability occurred after the trial had begun, and additional improvement of the document along with his providers grew to become inconceivable. A celebration needed to cross-examine Dr. Sanders through deposition however, as of Could 2023, he was unavailable.
The Appeals Board panel expressed their opinion that the experiences of a previous AME, who’s now unavailable, might comprise info that’s useful to a brand new QME or AME in orthopedic surgical procedure in assessing the injured employee’s situation and that’s related to the dedication of medical points obligatory for the adjudication of the declare, together with the document of the injured employee’s signs, medical historical past, medical observations, and diagnostic testing that could be misplaced over time. The Appeals Board additionally indicated that even permitting procedurally or substantively poor medical-legal reporting to stay in proof and reviewed by new medical-legal evaluators, might be assigned acceptable evidentiary weight since employees’ compensation legislation permits a broad admissibility of proof to make sure substantial justice. The Appeals Board panel additional strongly advised that if the events can not comply with a brand new AME, the trial choose ought to think about appointing a daily doctor underneath Labor Code part 5701. Question: would Dr. Sanders’ experiences be ordered despatched to a brand new QME or AME if there was no prior trial the place his experiences had been admitted into proof? It seems the present Appeals Board would have ordered Dr. Sanders’ experiences to be despatched to a brand new medical-legal evaluator no matter whether or not a trial had begun along with his experiences admitted into proof.
© Copyright 2025 LexisNexis. All rights reserved. This text is excepted from the upcoming 2025 Version of California Staff’ Compensation Discovery, a part of Rassp & Herlick, California Staff’ Compensation Regulation (LexisNexis).
