GMK Law Logo

News Alerts...

First  |  Previous  |  Next  |  Last
Records 8 to 12 of 283

New Faces at GMK

GMK is pleased to announce new Associates to the firm:

Los Angeles Office

ARIN SCAPA

Arin R. Scapa received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Irvine in 2004 and her Juris Doctor degree from the University of La Verne College of Law in 2010.

Prior to joining Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP, Ms. Scapa worked as a Staff Attorney for The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (The Hartford). It was with The Hartford that Ms. Scapa began practicing insurance defense in the field of workers’ compensation, after having previously practiced criminal law. Ms. Scapa worked for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California in the Criminal Division’s Major Frauds Section. There, Ms. Scapa worked exclusively on complex fraud cases, most of which had losses exceeding several million dollars; In addition, Ms. Scapa was a law clerk for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, a paralegal for a private criminal defense firm, and an intern for the Orange County Public Defender’s Office.

Ms. Scapa is currently serving on the Board of Governors of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles.

Ms. Scapa is a member of the State Bar of California. She is admitted to practice before all California courts, as well as before the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Bay Area Office

STEPHEN VACCARO

Stephen A. Vaccaro received his Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from California State University at Long Beach in 2002. He subsequently began a career in workers' compensation insurance investigations in the San Francisco Bay Area, which ultimately led him to pursue a legal education in 2009.

After receiving his Juris Doctor degree from Concord Law School in 2014, Mr. Vaccaro was admitted to practice law in the State of California. He now practices workers' compensation defense law with GMK’s Bay Area office.

Sacramento Office

JULI MILES

Juli Miles received her Bachelor of Arts Degree from California State University, Sacramento in 1983 and Juris Doctorate from Lincoln Law School in 1991.

Ms. Miles started her career in criminal law and civil litigation prior to practicing workers’ compensation defense. Before joining Goldman, Magdalin and Krikes, LLP, Ms. Miles worked in Workers’ Compensation Law for 17 years with one of the largest Workers’ Compensation defense firms in the United States.

Ms. Miles practices all aspects of workers’ compensation defense, including 132(a) discrimination, Serious and Willful Misconduct, coverage, public entity and appellate issues. Ms. Miles has argued a case before the California Court of Appeals.

Welcome to GMK- Arin, Stephen and Juli.

GMK Webinar

GMK is pleased to announce the first 2017 Webinar:

Friday, April 7th
• 9:00 am-10:00 am PST
• Topic: Mitigating Your Liability for CT Claims
• Presenter: Rick Goldman


To participate in this Webinar, please complete and return this form to ddon@gmklaw.com before March 27th.

If you have previously completed and returned this form, you are automatically signed up to receive the Webinar/Conference Call information.

A separate invitation email will be sent to you with the Conference Call information by March 27th.

CLIENT PRESENTATIONS

GMK is bringing our Annual GMK Seminar presentations and training to our clients with face-to-face training in your office.

We have over 25 client presentations confirmed for 2017. These training sessions are customized to client preferences. Our presentations generally last one hour, but depending on the requested topics to be covered some will take up to three hours. Continuing education credits are available for the training, just like it has been in the past for the annual GMK Seminars. We have numerous suggested topics that we have prepared for training which are attached here for your review. GMK can tailor a presentation on the topic of your choice. These training sessions provide one-on-one training with GMK attorneys.

If you haven't already signed up for GMK’s face-to-face training, please do so now by sending an email to Joy Tolladay jtolladay@gmklaw.com to schedule your personalized training with GMK.

AMENDED - WHAT IS A LEGAL “ADVOCACY LETTER”?

BRADLEY MAXHAM V CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

**Please note our January 27, 2017 GMK Alert had an error and the correct case name should be Bradley Maxham vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation**

On January 23, 2016 the WCAB issued an en-banc decision addressing the issue of what is “information” and what is a “communication” for purposes of advocacy letters to be submitted to an AME or a QME. En banc decisions are binding precedent on all WCAB panels and judges.

In Maxham, the applicant’s attorney submitted advocacy letters to three AME’s. The defendant objected to the advocacy letters on the grounds that the applicant’s communication to the AME’s constituted “information” because the applicant’s attorney included language about the duties of the AME in determining specific issues such as Benson, Almaraz/Guzman and the rule regarding 104 weeks of TTD. They also supplied the AME with a functional capacity evaluation form with instructions for the AME to fill out the FCE form. The defendant had specifically objected to the submission of the FCE form to the AME’s.

Despite the objection applicant’s attorney sent the letters anyway. The defendant filed a DOR seeking to resolve issues related to applicant’s submission of the advocacy letter without its agreement.

The case was set for trial and the WCJ made a determination that the letters did not constitute information [which would have been prohibited by Labor Code §4062.3(f)] but instead constituted only a “communication” which does not need to be agreed to by opposing counsel as long as it is served on opposing counsel at the time it is submitted to the AME/PQME.

Defendant filed a Petition for Removal contending that the letters should be considered “information” because they were “non-medical records relevant to the determination of a medical issue”, included the applicant’s legal position and had the effect of directing the AME to a favorable result.

The Board remanded the case back to the trial judge to make a determination as to whether the letters actually constituted “information” or whether they were a mere “communication.”

The en banc Board stated that if the advocacy letter merely references the information that the parties had agreed to send to the AME or QME then making references to those records, reports or deposition transcripts would not constitute “information”. However where there is an objection by one party to the submission of any “information” and there is a reference to that information in the communication, then that would be prohibited. The Board specifically noted that: “Only when the correspondence contains references or encloses “information” which the parties have not agreed to provide to the AME does it violate section 4062.3(c).”

In the footnote to this statement the Board notes that “litigants are entitled to reference (1) records prepared or maintained by the employee’s treating physician or physicians, and (2) medical and non-medical records relevant to the determination of the medical issue in advocacy letters if the parties have previously agreed to provide that referenced information to the AME.”

The Board also addressed the defendant’s contention that arguing or discussing the law or a legal position does not constitute “information” which would leave both the applicant and the defendant free to not only reference the documentation that has been sent to the AME without objection, but also to discuss the relevance of that information and the position of the party in regard to the meaning of that information without the communication becoming prohibited “information.”

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU

This case frames the argument with regard to what a party can reference in an “advocacy letter”. It sets forth parameters for the letter by noting that if there is reference to “information” that has been objected to by the other party then the letter itself would become a prohibited communication.

However when the parties agree to the documents and reports that are going to be submitted to the AME then any discussion of the relevance of that information or pointing out specific information in the records for specific scrutiny would not be a prohibited communication.

Where there is an objection to the submission of any documents or information to the AME or PQME one either must not make reference to it or one must go the Board to get a ruling on the objection before sending out the letter.

The bottom line is that engaging in “legitimate” advocacy does not transform a correspondence with a medical examiner from “communication” into “information.” However if the advocacy is not legitimate – in other words it references a misrepresentation of the law or the facts or engages in fallacious arguments intended to deceive then it could be considered “information”. Otherwise your advocacy letter can do exactly what it is supposed to do, i.e. advocate.

Prepared by Larry Preece, Esq., GMK Orange County Office

WHAT IS A LEGAL “ADVOCACY LETTER”?

MARKHAM v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION

On January 23, 2016 the WCAB issued an en-banc decision addressing the issue of what is “information” and what is a “communication” for purposes of advocacy letters to be submitted to an AME or a QME. En banc decisions are binding precedent on all WCAB panels and judges.

In Markham, the applicant’s attorney submitted advocacy letters to three AME’s. The defendant objected to the advocacy letters on the grounds that the applicant’s communication to the AME’s constituted “information” because the applicant’s attorney included language about the duties of the AME in determining specific issues such as Benson, Almaraz/Guzman and the rule regarding 104 weeks of TTD. They also supplied the AME with a functional capacity evaluation form with instructions for the AME to fill out the FCE form. The defendant had specifically objected to the submission of the FCE form to the AME’s.

Despite the objection applicant’s attorney sent the letters anyway. The defendant filed a DOR seeking to resolve issues related to applicant’s submission of the advocacy letter without its agreement.

The case was set for trial and the WCJ made a determination that the letters did not constitute information [which would have been prohibited by Labor Code §4062.3(f)] but instead constituted only a “communication” which does not need to be agreed to by opposing counsel as long as it is served on opposing counsel at the time it is submitted to the AME/PQME.

Defendant filed a Petition for Removal contending that the letters should be considered “information” because they were “non-medical records relevant to the determination of a medical issue”, included the applicant’s legal position and had the effect of directing the AME to a favorable result.

The Board remanded the case back to the trial judge to make a determination as to whether the letters actually constituted “information” or whether they were a mere “communication.”

The en banc Board stated that if the advocacy letter merely references the information that the parties had agreed to send to the AME or QME then making references to those records, reports or deposition transcripts would not constitute “information”. However where there is an objection by one party to the submission of any “information” and there is a reference to that information in the communication, then that would be prohibited. The Board specifically noted that: “Only when the correspondence contains references or encloses “information” which the parties have not agreed to provide to the AME does it violate section 4062.3(c).”

In the footnote to this statement the Board notes that “litigants are entitled to reference (1) records prepared or maintained by the employee’s treating physician or physicians, and (2) medical and non-medical records relevant to the determination of the medical issue in advocacy letters if the parties have previously agreed to provide that referenced information to the AME.”

The Board also addressed the defendant’s contention that arguing or discussing the law or a legal position does not constitute “information” which would leave both the applicant and the defendant free to not only reference the documentation that has been sent to the AME without objection, but also to discuss the relevance of that information and the position of the party in regard to the meaning of that information without the communication becoming prohibited “information.”

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU

This case frames the argument with regard to what a party can reference in an “advocacy letter”. It sets forth parameters for the letter by noting that if there is reference to “information” that has been objected to by the other party then the letter itself would become a prohibited communication.

However when the parties agree to the documents and reports that are going to be submitted to the AME then any discussion of the relevance of that information or pointing out specific information in the records for specific scrutiny would not be a prohibited communication.

Where there is an objection to the submission of any documents or information to the AME or PQME one either must not make reference to it or one must go the Board to get a ruling on the objection before sending out the letter.

The bottom line is that engaging in “legitimate” advocacy does not transform a correspondence with a medical examiner from “communication” into “information.” However if the advocacy is not legitimate – in other words it references a misrepresentation of the law or the facts or engages in fallacious arguments intended to deceive then it could be considered “information”. Otherwise your advocacy letter can do exactly what it is supposed to do, i.e. advocate.

Prepared by Larry Preece, Esq., GMK Orange County Office

First  |  Previous  |  Next  |  Last
Records 8 to 12 of 283