Documents, Documents, Documents: Litigating Liens and Rule 10608

Documents, Documents, Documents: Litigating Liens and Rule 10608
by Scott Rountree
Don't Have Enough Work?
Rule 10608 requires plenty of that. In a nutshell, this statute requires that lien claimants who request it be copied on all medical reports (not simply reports obtained on behalf of the defense).

Rule 10608(a) requires that medical reports be served on lien claimants within six days after receipt of a demand. Thereafter all subsequent reports must be served within six days after receipt. Additionally, Rule 10608 (b) states that DORs and objections to DORs must be accompanied with all medical reports not previously served on lien claimants requesting service.

In your "spare time," take a look at the endless number of bills and liens that cover your desk. How many of them have boilerplate language demanding all medical reports pursuant to Rule 10608? Most? All? The realities of a claims department make compliance with this regulation daunting, if not impossible.

California Supreme Court Issues Favorable Ruling for Bradford & Barthel's Kent Ball, Esq.

California Supreme Court Issues Favorable Ruling for Bradford & Barthel's Kent Ball, Esq.
by Don Barthel, Esq.
Exciting news! Kent Ball in Bradford & Barthel's Walnut Creek office just had a favorable ruling from the California Supreme Court in Larry Gossett vs. WCAB. The decision has been written up in several industry publications including the Insurance Journal, Forbes.com, WorkersCompensation.com, and WorkCompCentral.com.

In summary, Kent obtained apportionment to an asymptomatic condition even though the physician who provided the apportionment opinion, in a supplemental report, that his determination was "too speculative." The trial judge agreed. The WCAB, on reconsideration, reversed the trial judge's award thereby reducing a 76% award (worth about $175,000 with the life pension) to 65% ($81,000). The Board, in its Decision After Reconsideration, noted the "doctor's reference to speculation is surplus language and does not undermine his opinion on apportionment..."

In short, despite the doctor's express reservations, the WCAB agreed with Kent Ball that the doctor's initial apportionment determination was legal and valid "substantial evidence." Applicant's Petition for Writ of Review with the Court of Appeal was denied, as was his Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

Yes, you can even get apportionment with a waffling doctor!

Congratulations, Kent!

Don Barthel, Esq. is a founding partner of Bradford & Barthel, LLP and a founder of B&B Rating Services.