B&B’s Defense Deposition Strategies Upheld

by Tahmeena Ahmed (March 29, 2012)



Partner Tema Levine of our Tarzana office had a recent case designated as a Significant Panel Decision!!

A 56 year-old store manager was terminated for allowing an under age employee to drive a forklift.  Post termination, the manager filed 3 claims.  On each Application, applicant's attorney failed to disclose he had represented this man on 3 earlier claims.  To be exact, applicant had 7 prior claims resulting in substantial settlements, including compensation for the same parts of the body he was now alleging against our employer.  In addition, applicant filed a wrongful termination, wage and hour discrimination, and 132a actions.

Given the significant prior litigation history, B&B attempted to take applicant's deposition via videotape.  Applicant refused to proceed with the deposition unless the video camera was turned off.  Despite a properly noticed deposition, applicant and his attorney walked out of the deposition claiming defendant required "good cause" to videotape a deposition.  

Ms. Levine filed a motion to compel.

EFFECTIVELY DEFENDING AGAINST INTERPRETING LIENS

by Alec Bradford (March 1, 2012)

Liens are a huge problem in California. Division of Workers' Compensation Adminstrative Director Rosa Moran has recently stated that lien issues threaten the entire workers' compensation system (1). Much of the focus is directed towards various areas of medical liens.

Interpreting liens are often overlooked as the actual dollar amount requested is typically much lower than medical liens. However, this doesn't mean that you should be paying interpreting liens that aren't legally owed simply to close a file.

You might be surprised to find out that much of the time you are probably paying interpreting fees that you don't have to. In fact, on March 17, 2011 The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an en banc decision detailing exactly what is required of interpreters in order to prove that they are entitled to their fees in the case of Jose Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders 76 Cal. Comp. Cases 228. This is the case that interpreters don't want you to know about, because it is extremely difficult for interpreters to meet the legal requirements to obtain their fees.