laughlin
falbo
leVy &
moresi llp
255 California street, suite 600
san francisco, Ca 94111
Tel: (415) 781-6676
fax: (415) 781-6823
The
Workers’ CompensaTion
neWsleTTer
Volume 17, no. 1
MINE, YOURS, OURS?
A SUBPOENA RESPONSE PROTOCOL
106 k street, second floor
sacramento, Ca 95814-3213
Tel: (916) 441-6045
fax: (916) 441-7067
by
Demetra g. Johal, sacramento & natalie a. Cordellos, san Francisco
James s. brown, sedgwick LLp
250 hemsted drive, suite 300
redding, Ca 96002
Tel: (530) 222-0268
fax: (530) 222-5705
555 12th street, suite 1900
oakland, Ca 94607
Tel: (510) 628-0496
fax: (510) 628-0499
1520 The alameda, suite 200
san Jose, Ca 95126
Tel: (408) 286-8801
fax: (408) 286-1935
200 s. los robles, suite 500
pasadena, Ca 91101-2431
Tel: (626) 568-9700
fax: (626) 568-3905
1900 s. state College blvd, suite 505
anaheim, Ca 92806
Tel: (714) 385-9400
fax: (714) 385-9055
600 b street, suite 2300
san diego, Ca 92101
Tel: (619) 233-9898
fax: (619) 233-6862
575 e. locust street, suite 204
fresno, Ca 93720
Tel: (559) 431-4900
fax: (559) 431-4046
625 east Carnegie drive, suite 120
san bernardino, Ca 92408
Tel: (909) 890-2265
fax: (909) 890-2377
p.o. box 4041
santa monica, Ca 90411
Tel: (310) 392-8101
fax: (310) 392-8057
in This issue...
subpoena ..................................... 1
replaCing pQme ................... 2
penalTies & supplemenTal Job
displaCemenT benefiTs .......... 3
summer 2012
at first glance, sorting through documents in a claims file in response to a subpoena duces tecum may seem complicated and time consuming. That process, however, does not need to be burdensome and is an important one to protect the interests
of the carrier, adjuster, and employer.
long term readers of laughlin, falbo, levy & moresi’s newsletter recall we have
periodically provided guidance on this issue. however, it appears as though subpoenas seeking claims and human resource files have increased dramatically in
recent months, both in frequency as well as in the scope of records sought. in
response to this upsurge in subpoena activity, and as part of our joint collaboration
with the employment group at sedgwick llp, we offer a protocol for responding
to a deposition subpoena seeking these types of records. following these straightforward guidelines will streamline the response process and protect privileged documents from production. it should also ensure that only relevant, discoverable
information is provided, minimizing the potential that something in the production
creates additional liability for the employer or carrier.
What is a Subpoena?
subpoenas (also known as deposition subpoenas or subpoenas duces tecum) are the
principal means by which parties to litigation secure production of documents from
other parties or entities.
What Rules Govern Subpoenas?
The rules governing the use of subpoenas are set forth in the California Code of
Civil procedure, sections 1985 et seq. Jurisdiction over subpoenas is vested in the
Workers’ Compensation board through labor Code section 132. in workers’ compensation cases, subpoenas are issued by attorneys using standard forms available
from a copy service or online. although not issued directly by a judge, a subpoena
has the same force and effect of a court order. Any subpoena must be addressed
and not ignored.
© 2012 LaughLin, FaLbo, Levy & Moresi LLp
(ConTinued on page 4)
The Workers’ CompensaTion neWsleTTer
ELEVATE YOUR HITTING WITHOUT CORKING YOUR BAT:
how to replace panel Qualified medical evaluators
by Jeremiah brasher, sacramento
as part of sb 899, reforms were enacted to establish a
system of medical discovery. To that end, a selection
process was implemented wherein panel qualified medical evaluators (“pQmes”) are selected from a randomly
generated three-name list provided by the medical unit.
in those instances where parties cannot agree on an
ame, participation in the pQme selection process can
result in a loss of control over medical discovery, which
could adversely affect case outcomes.
however, the California Code of regulations provide
defendant with potentially powerful tools to disqualify
and remove undesirable pQmes. in other words, you
don’t always have to cork your bat to elevate your game.
Is the Evaluation/Report Timely?
There are four important deadlines that pQmes often
miss which are the basis for disqualification. They are:
1. failure to schedule an initial evaluation within
60 days of the initial request for an appointment (8
CCr §31.5(a)(2)) or 90 days if the person requesting the evaluation agrees to an extension (8 CCr
§33.1(e));
2. failure to produce an initial report within 30
days of evaluating the applicant (8 CCr
§31.5(a)(12); l.C. §139.2(j)(1));
3. failure to produce a report within 30 days of a
re-evaluating the applicant (8 CCr §38(a)); or,
4. failure to produce a supplemental report within 60 days of receipt of the request (8 CCr
§§31.5(a)(12), 38(h)).
in order to replace a pQme for one of the above grounds,
an objection to a untimely report must be made prior to
the issuance of the pQme report. otherwise, the objection is lost, as is the opportunity to perhaps replace an
unfavorable evaluator. it is recommended that a
declaration of readiness to proceed be filed in addition
to the written objection, seeking a status Conference on
the issue. This will ensure all bases are covered.
Is the PQME Appointment Notification Timely?
a lesser known basis for disqualification is outlined at 8
CCr §31.5(a)(11). These regulations provide that,
whenever an appointment is made with a pQme, the
pQme shall complete an appointment notification form
and forward it to the employee and adjuster within 5
business days from the date the appointment was made.
failure to comply with this requirement is a basis for disqualification.
Is the PQME in the Appropriate Specialty?
The medical director, upon written request, can find
good cause that a pQme should be replaced for reasons
related to the medical nature of the injury, or because the
specialty selected is inappropriate for the disputed medical issues. 8 CCr §§31.5(a)(9)(10). as an example, the
selection of a chiropractic pQme would not be appropriate in a case in which the injured worker has a gastrointestinal malady.
Have Ethical Requirements Been Violated?
in addition to the grounds for seeking a new Qme or
panel set forth above, there are ethical requirements for
Qmes which, if violated, may constitute good cause for
removal. one ethical requirement is that the pQme provide an “accurate and objective assessment”. (8 CCr
§41, et seq.) how ethics can be breached is best illustrated by the following case.
in ponsi v. gonzalez unified sch. Dist., supra, 2009 Cal.
Wrk. Comp. p.d. leXis 277, the WCJ found that the
pQme’s report did not constitute substantial evidence as
to whether the applicant’s hypertension and heart disease
were compensable consequences of her orthopedic injury
or work environment stress. at his deposition, the
pQme expressed a conclusory belief that no relationship
exists between chronic work stress and hypertensive
heart disease. Troubled by the doctor’s opinion, the WCJ
ignored the pQme’s report and instructed the parties,
either agree to an ame or be faced with the appointment
of an ime. The defendants filed for removal.
(ConTinued on page 7)
l aughlin , falbo , l eVy & m oresi
llp
page 2
The Workers’ CompensaTion neWsleTTer
PENALTIES ANd THE TIMELINESS Of
SUPPLEMENTAL jOB dISPLACEMENT BENEfITS
often overlooked and sometimes expensive
by heidi K. hengel, oakland
When settling cases, supplemental Job displacement
benefits (“vouchers”) can seem like an afterthought.
however, defense attorneys and claims administrators
should be aware that case law allows for steep penalties
for late issuance and late payment of vouchers. it is
important to know the timelines as to when the voucher
must issue and to whom payment must be made upon
receipt of voucher invoices. The cost of overlooking a
few basic rules can land claims administrators and
defense counsel back in court facing penalties and attorney’s fees.
What is a Supplemental job displacement Benefit
(“SjdB”)?
pursuant to sb 899, as of January 1, 2004, an injured
worker is no longer entitled to vocational rehabilitation
(Vr) benefits. While the elimination of vocational rehabilitation was celebrated by defendants everywhere, it is
important to know that Vr benefits have been replaced
by supplemental job displacement benefits (sJdb) or
“vouchers”.
an sJdb is a monetary allowance provided in the form
of a voucher to an injured worker by defendant (usually
the claims administrator or carrier), which allows the
employee to select and enroll in education-related training or skills enhancement classes at an authorized school
pursuant to labor Code section 4658.5. sJdbs entitle
injured workers who are unable to perform their duties at
their prior jobs to learn new skills and rejoin the workforce.
When is an Injured Worker Entitled to an SjdB
Voucher?
pursuant to labor Code section 4658.5, for injuries after
January 1, 2004, a voucher must be provided to an
injured worker when: (1) the injury causes permanent
partial disability; (2) no offer of modified work or alternative work has been made within 30 days of temporary
disability ending; and (3) the injured worker does not
return to work within 60 days of temporary disability
l aughlin , falbo , l eVy & m oresi
llp
ending; or, (4) where a seasonal worker does not return
to work on the next available work date for the following
season. (see, henry v. WCab (1998) 68 Cal. app. 4th
981.)
The Voucher Must Issue Within Twenty-five days of
Settlement Approval
once it is determined that the injured worker is entitled
to a voucher, the defendant must provide notice of entitlement of the voucher to the injured worker within 25
calendar days from the issuance of the permanent disability award by a WCJ or appeals board (8 Cal. Code
regs. section 10133.56(c)), unless the employee has previously settled the voucher as part of his award. it should
be noted that the worker can settle his entitlement to a
voucher absent legal representation, in contrast to the old
extinct Vocational rehabilitation (“Vr”) system. (see, 8
Cal. Code regs section 10133.52; see also, godinez v.
buffets, inc., specialty risk services (2004) (WCab
panel) 69 CCC 1311).
if, however, the worker has not previously settled his
voucher entitlement, defendant’s failure to provide the
voucher notice to the employee within 25 days of settlement can result in penalties of up to 25% plus attorney’s
fees. in the case of Medina v CDL Landscape/sCiF
(sbr 0322331), defendant’s failure to timely provide an
$8,000 voucher resulted in penalties and attorney’s fees
in the amount of $4,747.50, more than 50% of the value
of the voucher itself!
What are the Content Requirements for Issuance of
the Voucher Notice?
There are several requirements that defendant must comply with when issuing a voucher notice. failure to abide
by the requirements may result in the 25% penalty previously discussed.
first, the voucher notice must clearly indicate the appropriate level of money available to the injured worker in
(ConTinued on page 8)
page 3
The Workers’ CompensaTion neWsleTTer
SUBPOENA RESPONSE PROTOCOL
ConTinued from page 1
upon receipt of the subpoena, it is imperative that you
carefully review it and identify (1) what is being subpoenaed (2) who is requesting the documents, and (3) what is
the production deadline. The time for responding to a
subpoena is very limited, sometimes only a few days.
failure to respond timely may result in a waiver of critical objections. in other words, failure to timely respond
could result in the production of protected claim notes,
investigations, communications with counsel, and
reserve calculations.
Send the Subpoena to Counsel
if counsel has been assigned to the claim, or a referral is
imminent, advise counsel immediately upon your receipt
of the subpoena, and send the subpoena with its attachments, if any, to counsel for a response. if the injured
worker also has discipline or internal complaint issues,
you will want to make sure that your civil attorney or
human resources specialist is advised. We’ll take it from
there! once the subpoena is in our hands, we will review
it for the following:
is the description specific?
it is not uncommon for subpoenas to seek the “claims
file” or “human resources file”. in those cases the
description is not acceptable. The party issuing the subpoena is obligated to identify the materials the subpoena
seeks to produce, “by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item…” Code of Civil procedure 2020.410(a).
Therefore, a subpoena which demands “all records which
support your position in this action”, or “all actions relating to the injured worker in this action”, is not sufficiently specific.
are the documents subpoenaed
protected from disclosure?
in addition to procedural defects in the subpoena, both
claims and human resources files contain information
which is confidential and not subject to disclosure.
Those documents may be entitled to protection under the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the right of privacy, or could otherwise constitute
an unreasonable or oppressive demand, seek items that
l aughlin , falbo , l eVy & m oresi
llp
are irrelevant to the issues, or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
i. attorney-Client privilege
Communications among counsel, the claims
adjuster, and/or the employer, including documents
memorializing those written or verbal communications, are strictly protected from disclosure, as
those communications may include strategy, recommendations, advice and evaluation of the compensation case. The privilege extends to the attorney’s staff members, as well as the adjuster’s staff
members. rather than attempting to determine
whether the particular communications contain
privileged information, it is the preferred practice
to exclude all communications with counsel
(including fax cover sheets, transmittal letters, and
the like). however, if the communication was pub(ConTinued on page 5)
Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLp has 11 offices
throughout California to handle your company’s
workers’ compensation cases. Our offices are located in Anaheim, Fresno, Oakland, pasadena,
Redding, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego,
San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Monica. All
are staffed with attorneys who are able to represent
your interest before the Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Board and Office of Workers’
Compensation programs.
Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLp conducts educational classes and seminars for clients and professional organizations. Moreover, we would be
pleased to address your company with regard to
recent legislative changes and their application to
claims handling or on any subject in the workers’
compensation field which may be of interest to you
or about which you believe your staff should be better informed. In addition, we would be happy to
address your company on recent appellate court
decisions in the workers’ compensation field, the
American with Disabilities Act, or on the topic of
workers’ compensation subrogation.
please contact Demetra Johal in our Sacramento
office.
Telephone Number: (916) 441-6045
Email: djohal@lflm.com
page 4
The Workers’ CompensaTion neWsleTTer
SUBPOENA RESPONSE PROTOCOL
ConTinued from page 4
lished to a third party, such as another attorney representing adverse interests or a doctor (other than a
Qme, wherein the correspondence has not been
copied to the opposing attorney), the privilege is
lost, as there was no expectation of confidentiality.
ii. The attorney Work-product doctrine
The attorney work-product doctrine protects from
disclosure documents (1) prepared at the request of
counsel, (2) in anticipation of litigation and (3) for
risk management purposes. This basis for objecting
to a subpoena, and for excluding those documents
from production, is sometimes referred to as “limited privilege”, which differs from the “absolute”
attorney-client privilege. The doctrine is derived
from the rationale that a party’s efforts to thoroughly investigate and prepare its case should be
protected from disclosure to the opposing party.
public policy encourages thorough investigation of
incidents, in order to attempt to determine the
cause, and to help avoid another similar occurrence. if those involved in the investigation cannot
be candid and thorough, including discussing possible fault and opinions on liability, for fear that
those impressions will be disclosed to potential
adverse parties, the “chilling effect” could result in
future similar injuries.
documents which may be subject to protection
from disclosure under the attorney Work-product
doctrine may include the employer’s first report
(it should be noted that the form 5020 is never
admissible in court proceedings pursuant to labor
Code section 6412), investigation reports (including summaries of witness statements and summaries of surveillance videos), witness statements
(written or recorded statements of parties to the
action are discoverable), letters written to Qmes, if
the opposing counsel was not required to be
copied, and consultant/expert communications.
iii. right of privacy
California’s Constitution provides a right of privacy to every person. in many instances, the subpoena seeks extensive personnel file records in addition to medical and claims handling information.
every employer (and agent of an employer) has an
obligation to protect the right of privacy of injured
workers. Certainly the medical and compensation
information related to the current injury claim or a
past claim is discoverable. however, to the extent
the subpoena seeks all job performance information, discipline records, internal investigation files,
or similar documents that are tangential, at best, to
the issues in the workers’ compensation action,
those requests should be carefully scrutinized. The
obligation to protect the privacy rights of the
injured worker is a valid basis for refusing to produce a document. in addition, the purpose for
requesting these type of records is sometimes to
expand the claim to include a labor Code 132a discrimination claim or a fishing expedition for a possible civil claim.
iV. other protection bases
a subpoena requesting “the entire claim file”
would technically include not only documents subject to protection by the attorney-client privilege
and the attorney work product doctrine, but also
those physical and electronically-stored documents
that consist of internal communications and communications to the employer relating to claim handling, Claim activity notes, reserve calculations,
unit stat reports and legal billings. some of these
might arguably fall within the attorney work product doctrine, or may be irrelevant to the issues
involved in the case, and not calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. others may
constitute an unreasonable or oppressive demand.
in any case, these documents should not be produced, and efforts to protect them from disclosure
should be taken.
our response proToCol
i. send Counsel the Complete Claims and/or
human resource files
in order for counsel to effectively respond to subpoenas, it is imperative that along with the subpoena, counsel receive the complete claims and/or
human resource files being subpoenaed. Counsel
will review the files and redact privileged or protected documents prior to responding by way of
meet and confer letter as explained below.
(ConTinued on page 6)
l aughlin , falbo , l eVy & m oresi
llp
page 5
The Workers’ CompensaTion neWsleTTer
SUBPOENA RESPONSE PROTOCOL
ConTinued from page 5
ii. meet and Confer
The California Code of Civil procedure requires
that before seeking the intervention of the court,
the parties make an attempt to “meet and confer” to
resolve the disputed issues with regard to the subpoena. This obligation is generally fulfilled when
counsel for the subpoenaed party sets out in writing the basis for objection to the subpoena, and
seeks an agreement limiting the scope of production to avoid the need to file a motion to Quash. it
is essential that the “meet and confer” letter specifically identify objections to the subpoena, which
may include deficiencies in the wording of the subpoena request, the relevance of the documents
being sought, applicable privileges, and all other
pertinent objections.
at the same time, the “meet and confer” letter
should also indicate which documents will be produced voluntarily. in the event a motion to Quash
is required, the “meet and confer” letter will be
attached as an exhibit to that motion. it is, therefore, recommended that a bona fide, substantive
attempt be made to resolve outstanding issues by
producing those documents to which the subpoenaing party is entitled.
The “meet and confer” letter should request a
response from the subpoenaing party by a date certain prior to the production date set forth on the
subpoena, to confirm that the opposing party
agrees to limit the subpoena requests in the manner
proposed, or in the alterative, to “meet and confer”
further.
if the subpoena is issued through a copy service,
the copy service should be courtesy copied on the
“meet and confer” letter in order to defray copy
costs, or at the very least to provide a basis to challenge ongoing costs submitted by the copy company after issues have been resolved.
in the event that the “meet and confer” letter goes
unanswered, or the parties are unable to agree on
the scope of production, the subpoenaed party
should file a motion to Quash as explained below.
l aughlin , falbo , l eVy & m oresi
llp
iii. motion to Quash
When informal efforts to resolve the disputed
issues have failed, the subpoenaed party must file a
motion to Quash to seek redress before a judge. a
motion to Quash is made pursuant to Code of Civil
procedure sections 1985 et seq., evidence codes
952 et seq., on the grounds that the subpoena
makes no showing of just cause or materiality, and
seeks the production of irrelevant or privileged
documents. The purpose of the motion is to protect
the party whose records are being subpoenaed from
undue harassment, burdensome, oppressive and
intrusive invasion of private information, and
incurring unnecessary costs. Within the motion,
the moving party must demonstrate that the subpoenaing party has failed to articulate the requisite
good cause for producing the documents requested.
in order to show good cause, a subpoenaing party
must set forth in “full detail, the materiality of the
exact matters and things described in the subpoena
to the issues in the case.” Within the Workers’
Compensation system, a well-written detailed
motion to Quash, which attaches a meet and confer letter as an exhibit, generally requires no hearing on the issue and the WCJ can issue an order
Quashing the subpoena based on the written argument alone.
Conclusion
responding to a subpoena for records can be a relatively
daunting task, subject to potential pitfalls, primarily related to the possibility of waiving rights protecting certain
documents from disclosure or providing information that
could expand the claims being asserted. failing to timely and properly object and/or file a motion to Quash may
well result in your adversary “seeing your hand,” by
obtaining confidential information, including litigation
strategy and reserve information. likewise, it could provide a basis for a 132a petition or a civil claim. failure to
timely comply with a subpoena may also result in contempt sanctions.
laughlin, falbo, levy & moresi and sedgwick llp routinely assist clients with subpoena compliance issues and
are available for in-house training. u
page 6
The Workers’ CompensaTion neWsleTTer
REPLACE PQME
ConTinued from page 2
a three-member panel of WCab commissioners agreed
with the WCJ’s ruling with respect to the pQme’s disqualification and further noted that the WCJ could not
order the parties to select an ame. The panel relied upon
8 CCr §41, which prescribes various ethical requirements for Qmes. specifically, subsection (c) provides:
(c)“all Qmes, regardless of whether the
injured worker is represented by an attorney, shall
with respect to his or her comprehensive medicallegal evaluation: (2) [provide] an accurate and
objective assessment . . . [and] . . .
(4) render expert opinions or conclusions . .
. [which] . . . shall be based on the facts . . . and
shall be without bias[.]”
The ponsi panel was concerned with the pQme’s
intractable position that, “regardless of the facts of a particular case, he believes employment stress cannot cause,
exacerbate or even contribute to hypertensions.”(id. at 9)
The Workers’ Compensation Newsletter is published by Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLp.
Contributors to this issue include Jeremiah
Brasher (LFLM - Sacramento), Jim Brown
(Sedgwick LLp - San Francisco), Natalie
Cordellos (LFLM - San Francisco), Heidi Hengel
(LFLM - Oakland), and Demetra Johal (LFLM Sacramento).
A special thank you to John Bennett (LFLM - San
Francisco) for enhancing the newsletter with his
superior gramatical skills.
Should you have any questions or comments
regarding the Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi
newsletter, or would like to suggest a topic or
recent case you think would be of interest, please
contact Demetra Johal (Newsletter Editor) in our
Sacramento office or Natalie Cordellos
(Newsletter Assistant Editor) in our San Francisco
office.
Demetra Johal
Tel: (916) 441-6045
Email: djohal@lflm.com
ponsi suggests that the ethical requirements in 8 CCr
§§41, et seq may be used to disqualify pQmes, and that
it is within the discretion of the WCJ to determine
whether or not the alleged breach of the ethical requirements renders pQme’s report biased, unsubstantial or
without evidentiary value.
Are There Other Bases for disqualification?
other lesser known reasons for replacement of a pQme
infrequently used include, but are not limited to:
• The pQme is currently or has been the
employee’s primary treating physician or secondary physician for the injury currently in dispute,
• a disqualifying conflict of interest,
• The Qme feels he or she is not medically qualified to address the disputed issues,
• no Qme selection and evaluation from a panel
issued over 24 months ago.
Conclusion
as noted above, there are multiple circumstances under
which a pQme can be disqualified from a case. While
parties are sometimes bound by the random selection of
doctors on a panel issued by the medical unit, careful
attention to the bases for disqualification discussed above
can result in the issuance of a replacement panel or individual evaluator.
The replacement panel request form may be accessed at
the following site:
Natalie Cordellos
Tel: (415) 781-6676
Email: ncordellos@lflm.com
l aughlin , falbo , l eVy & m oresi
in essence, the pQme “would never find a case of industrial hypertension, whether he actually examined applicant or not.”(id. at 9) such an approach was deemed
inconsistent with 8 CCr §41, and thus the panel determined that the applicant could not be returned to the
pQme. “failure to comply with [8 CCr §] 41 is fatal in
this instance because absence a semblance of objectivity,
the panel Qme’s opinion is of no evidentiary value.”
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/forms/Qmeforms/Qm
eform31_5.pdf u
llp
page 7
The Workers’ CompensaTion neWsleTTer
PENALTIES ANd SUPPLEMENTAL jOB dISPLACEMENT BENEfITS
ConTinued from page 3
compliance with labor Code section 4658.5. The values
are as follows: up to $4,000 for less than 15% permanent
disability, up to $6,000 for 15-25% permanent disability,
up to $8,000 for 26-49% permanent disability, and up to
$10,000 for 50-99% permanent disability.
second, the voucher notice must certify that the school is
approved by one of the regional associations of schools
and Colleges authorized by the us department of
education or by the regional associations for out-ofstate schools approved by a California state agency.
(see 8 Cal. Code regs. section 10133.56(g)). one of the
most common California state agencies approving
schools for retraining purposes is the bureau for private
postsecondary education (bppVe) within the
department of Consumer affairs. a party can verify
whether a school is approved on their website at
www.bppve.ca.gov.
The SjdB Voucher Invoice Must Be Paid within
forty-five days of Receipt of Proper documentation
it is important to note that the voucher cannot have an
expiration date and the injured worker can use it at any
time. There is no statute of limitations on voucher usage.
if the employee opts to use his voucher, the reimbursement for the voucher must be paid directly to the employee or to the provider of the education-related training or
skill enhancement upon the employee’s or school’s presentation to the claims administrator of the proper documentation and receipts. pursuant to 8 Cal. Code regs.
section 10111.2(b)(29), failure to pay any properly documented sJdb voucher invoice within 45 days can result
in a penalty of up to $100 for each invoice of $1,000 or
less, $200 for each invoice of more than $1000, $300 for
each invoice of more than $2,000, $500 for each invoice
of more than $3,000, and $1,000 for each invoice of more
than $5,000.
supplies, and tuition; (3) verification that the employee is
enrolled in the school; and, (4) verification that the
school has been certified by a California state agency or
the u.s. department of education. if any of these documents are missing or incomplete when the invoice is submitted, the 45 day timeline is tolled, and defendant is not
subject to penalties for failure to issue payment.
dispute Resolution
if all the documentary requirements have been satisfied,
and a dispute remains regarding timeliness or reasonableness of the vouchers, counsel for defendants should
file a “request for dispute resolution before the
administrative director” (8 Cal. Code regs. section
10133.55). one issue which has not yet been adjudicated relates to reimbursement by defendant to the provider
for school supplies or tuition that is charged above market value. unfortunately, there is no case law providing
guidelines for the reasonableness or appropriateness of
the use of the vouchers. however, if the injured worker
is entitled to the voucher, and all the above-mentioned
prerequisites have been met, then the voucher invoice
must be paid in full regardless of the alleged mark-up.
There is no concrete or similar cost pattern across all
schools, as tuition rates may vary greatly from school to
school. due to the lack of consistency regarding the reasonableness of cost for tuition and supplies, this may be
an issue ripe for future litigation.
Conclusion
defendants may incur significant increased claims costs
by way of penalties and additional attorney’s fees if statutory criteria for vouchers are overlooked. These are costs
can easily avoided by adherence to the timelines and
requirements set forth above. u
The 45 day requirement is triggered by receipt by defendant of the following from the school or injured worker:
(1) a completed 8 Cal. Code regs. section 10133.57
form, which includes the applicant’s signature and school
authorization number; (2) the school’s invoice detailing
the amounts for reimbursement broken down by classes,
l aughlin , falbo , l eVy & m oresi
llp
page 8
LfLM HOSTS STATEWIdE WOMEN’S fORUMS
on february 9, 2012, 16 women lawyers from five southern California lflm offices gathered
at the home of marijo kuperman, san diego managing partner, to enjoy an evening of talk, food
and wine tasting. The gathering was the first of its kind for the firm in southern California; however, san francisco partner patricia gould has held a yearly gathering of lflm’s bay area
women lawyers at her home for 17 years.
These informal events provide women with a stress-free setting where they can get to know each
other during the course of their busy schedules. The yearly gatherings are only the first step in
lflm’s continuing and evolving efforts to address issues regarding the needs of women lawyers
in the workplace. lflm’s diversity program is also developing a more formal Women’s forum
which will address gender based issues and the benefits of practicing law in our firm and in the
California workers’ compensation system.
laughlin
falbo
leVy &
moresi llp
255 California street, suite 600
san francisco, Ca 94111
Tel: (415) 781-6676
fax: (415) 781-6823
The Workers’ CompensaTion neWsleTTer