Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, Bishop,
Oakland, Sacramento, Salinas, San Jose,
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara
Petition for Removal Prevents Out-of-State Adjuster from Appearing at Trial
By A.J. Driscoll
The case of Jaime Simmons v. Just Wingin’ It, Inc. (2017) was defended by associate attorney, A.J. Driscoll, out of our Fresno Office. Temporary disability benefits were at issue at a Mandatory Settlement Conference at the Stockton Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. At the MSC, the parties could not settle the issue requiring a Trial.
During the MSC applicant attorney’s representative made a motion for the adjuster to be ordered to appear at Trial to testify. The representative argued live testimony was necessary to assess the credibility of the adjuster and the benefit payments made in the case. Over defense objections, the adjuster was ordered to appear at Trial to testify. The handling adjuster was located out of the state. Despite multiple objections and requests for alternative testimony, the hearing ended with an order form the WCJ for the adjuster to appear at Trial.
Following the hearing and order to appear, a timely Petition for Removal was drafted by Mr. Driscoll. In this Petition, Mr. Driscoll argued the defense would suffer substantial harm by requiring an out of state adjuster to appear where there are other means available for testimony, including but not limited to telephonic (Court Call) or skype related devices.
The Petition for Removal was met with a recommendation for denial authored by the MSC Judge. Finding against the recommendation report of the MSC Judge, the WCAB panel of commissioners found the witness should be allowed to testify via "alternative means". In support of the WCAB decision, the commissioners cited Code of Civil Procedure sec. 2025.310 and California Rule of Court rule 3.1010, which allow for the taking of depositions electronically. The commissioners used this as guidance to determine that it was not necessary for the adjuster to be present at Trial. "
Following the Removal, the temporary disability issue was settled informally, eliminating the need for a Trial. Yrulegui & Roberts prides itself on aggressive representation of its clients, as evidenced by the WCAB panel ruling in this case.
• RTW Form Not a Basis to Deny Voucher
• The Intoxication Defense is Not Always Affirmative
• King Decision and Exclusive Remedy Rule
• Medical Providers Using New Tactic to Challenge Past Bills
• Risk Factors and Apportionment City of Pealuma (Lindh) v. WCAB
• Dynamex Does Not Actually Apply to Workers’ Compensation… or Does It?
• How and Why to Establish the Validity of a Medical Provider Network at Trial
• Attorney Client Privilege & Work Product Doctrine
• The Demise of Vocational Rehabilitation Reports Post 01-01-2013
• Is The Combined Values Chart Rebuttable?
• Panel Dispute Strategy
• Changes To Utilization Review And Independent Medical Review as of 1-1-18
• Labor Code §4903.8(b) - Lien Litigation
• Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
• City of Jackson v. WCAB (Rice)
• Jaime Simmons v. Just Wingin’ It, Inc.
• Maxham v. SCIF
• Senate Bill 11/60/Lien Anti-Fraud Provisions and Utilization Review Changes
• Penalties Assessed Under Labor Code Section 5814
• New California Law Establishes Shared Liability Between Employer & Labor Contractor
• Rulings Concerning Medical Treatment Disputes
• Cannon Appellate Decision and The Cannon Ball Effect It Will Have
• The Beginning and Ending of Temporary Disability
• Medical Provider Network Changes
• New Lien Regulations
• Y&R Prevails Against Lien Claimants
• Want to know what the applicant is really up to?
• New En banc decision from WCAB allows Defendant's more Discovery
• A First-Year Associate's Perspective on Workers' Compensation in California
• An Alternative Strategy for Protection against Illegitimate Treating Practices
• TTD & PD Rates for Seasonal Employees
• Labor Code 4658(d)(3)(A)
• Y&R Obtains Take-Nothing from WCAB