In summary, remember that it is always applicant’s burden to prove his or her injury is industrial and whether any presumptions apply. However, the best practitioners will always have their rebuttal evidence prepared to defend all aspects of a claim.

While our statute of limitations defense was built upon a mountain of applicant’s errors, not every case is so clear-cut and you may have questions about the viability of your defense.

Anytime an unrepresented panel exists, and Applicant subsequently becomes represented before the QME evaluation, Defendants should argue that Applicant attorneys must issue a new objection under 4062.2 and wait the 10 + 5 before selecting a new panel specialty.

Section 4062.3(b) requires that “information” proposed to be provided to the QME “shall be served on the opposing party 20 days before the information is provided to the evaluator. If the opposing party objects to consideration of nonmedical records within 10 days thereafter, the records shall not be provided to the evaluator.” Although §4062.3(b) does not give a specific timeline for the opposing party to object to the QME’s consideration of medical records, the opposing party must object to the provision of medical records to the QME within a reasonable time in order to preserve that objection. The failure to object at the first opportunity may be construed as an implicit agreement by the opposing party to provision of the information to the QME.

The 2017 decision of Kite v. Athens Administrators (2013) 78 CCC 213 (writ denied) has left the legal community scratching its collective head. From the definition of “synergism” to whether “overlap” necessarily rules out compensable consequences, the courts have issued a dizzying array of inconsistent decisions. In this article, we will explore the history of Kite and its progeny, and address what appear to be the critical elements of sustaining — or defeating — a Kite analysis. Finally, we will address holding of the 2018 Fitzgerald case and its likely impact on the Kite line of cases.

HUNTER vs. RYERSON STEEL SERVICE
(2018) 46 CWCR 31

SIERRA vs. MARK BOWERS DRYWALL
(2018) 2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 123

GUTIERREZ vs. MOLYCORP MINERALS
(2018) 2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 3

AMEDEE vs. PACIFIC BELL
(2018) 2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 63

Applicant, a Deputy Sheriff for the County of Orange, alleged a specific injury to his left knee and right foot occurring on November 14, 2013. He was evaluated for the injury by a Panel QME. In his report, the QME stated that the applicant sustained not only a specific injury, but also a cumulative trauma involving the same body parts.