Featured Sponsor

Trevor Simonson is a Hearing Representative and Lien Specialist with our Fresno location. Mr. Simonson graduated with a degree in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2007. He currently attends San Joaquin College of Law and gained experience clerking in the criminal defense field prior to joining our firm. Since then he has worked closely with attorneys and clients in resolving all matters of lien and case-in chief issues.


Our School

Please visit our online school.

The WorkCompAcademy is a full featured online learning experience. Our faculty includes the leading practitioners in the California Workers' Compensation Community. Our online curriculum covers all aspects of Workers' Compensation Claims, from basic concepts to advanced topics of value to experienced practitioners such as senior claims exectives, attorneys, and Qualified Medical Evaluators. Students can access classes any time, from any internet connected computer. Courses can be completed at an individualized pace.

Workers' Compensation Daily News for Feb 12, 2016

DWC Prepares for Drug Formulary Public Meeting
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:13:19 - Pacific Time
The Division of Workers’ Compensation has posted the Agenda and background materials for the February 17th Drug Formulary Public Meeting. The meeting is being held to solicit public input on issues relating to implementation of Assembly Bill 1124, which requires the adoption of a workers’ compensation drug formulary by July 1, 2017.

The meeting is scheduled from 10 a.m. until noon on Wednesday, February 17, 2016 in the auditorium of the Elihu Harris State Office Building, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.

The Agenda and background materials may be accessed on the DWC Forum. The Agenda includes a presentation by Barbara Wynn, Senior Health Policy Analyst with RAND and a public discussion of formulary issues identified by RAND.

The DWC contracted with RAND to provide assistance in the design and implementation of the formulary and related policies and in estimating the economic impact of the formulary. Key questions that RAND researchers will address include:

1) How should the drug formulary be structured? What are the advantages and disadvantages of existing formularies that might be considered by the California WC program?
2) What implementation policies should be considered to address the AB 1124 requirements and promote the provision of appropriate pharmaceuticals expeditiously while minimizing administrative burden?
3) What are the likely impacts of implementing the formulary on drug utilization patterns and spending? What are the costs and benefits of implementing an evidence-based formulary consistent with the AB 1124 requirements for injured workers, providers,employers, and society?
4) What are the key indicators and measures that should be used to monitor implementation of the formulary?

The DWC will also gather and analyze information on potential formularies that DWC might consider and the ancillary policies that other state WC programs have adopted in implementing drug formularies, including how the formulary is integrated with medical treatment guidelines. It will consider the feasibility of DWC constructing a formulary tailored to its medical treatment utilization guidelines and review the evidence-based formularies from American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG), the Washington Department of Labor and Industries, and the California Department of Health Care Services (MediCal).

The review of the regulatory policies that other WC programs have adopted in implementing a WC formulary will include the states of Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee and Washington. Read More...

Former Workers' Compensation Judge Frank Kleeman Dies at 82
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:13:12 - Pacific Time
Former Workers' Compensation Judge Frank Lynn Kleeman passed away peacefully on February 5, 2016 at UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center of Cardiac Arrest with his wife, Charlotte, and daughter, Shari, by his side. He was 82.

Judge Kleeman led an incredibly diverse life, serving in the US Navy, Air Force Reserve, and as a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy. He went on to be an attorney in 1977, Workers Compensation Judge in the 1980s, and later an Arbitrator.

After moving to the Santa Clarita Valley, Judge Kleeman became actively involved in the community, supporting many organizations including the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Clarita Valley, the College of the Canyons Foundation, the SCV Repertory Theater, and the Newhall Redevelopment Committee. He was Board Emeritus of The Pasadena Playhouse. He was named Santa Clarita Valley Man of the Year in 2002, and he was also named Philanthropist of the Year for the Network of California Community Colleges in 2002..

Judge Kleeman leaves behind his wife Charlotte, son Jeff, daughters Shari, Robin, and Suzette, grandchildren Elijah, Maxwell and Destiny, brother Dr. Charles Kleeman and wife, Annette, many nieces and nephews and, his beloved dogs, Cookie and Oreo. Frank was preceded in death by his brother Stanley Kleeman, and sister Ruth Pelter.

"He was so very well-liked in this community," said Cheryl Jones, vice president of the Child and Family Center Foundation. "He volunteered with us and his efforts were substantial," she said. He served on the foundation’s Board of Directors for more than 20 years.

LA Physician Gets 30 Years to Life For Pain Pill Conviction
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:54:48 - Pacific Time
The second-degree murder convictions last October of a Los Angeles-area physician were the first against a U.S. doctor for prescribing massive quantities of addictive and dangerous drugs to patients with no legitimate need, three of whom died of overdoses. A jury of 10 women and two men found Hsiu Ying "Lisa" Tseng, 45, guilty of 23 counts, including 19 counts of unlawful controlled substance prescription and one count of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud. The guilty verdict marks the first time in the United States where a doctor was convicted of murder for overprescribing drugs.

Tseng was convicted of second-degree murder for the deaths of Vu Nguyen, 28, of Lake Forest; Steven Ogle, 24, of Palm Desert; and Joseph Rovero, 21, an Arizona State University student from San Ramon. Nguyen died March 2, 2009. Ogle died a month later on April 9, 2009. Rovero died Dec. 18, 2009. All were patients of Tseng, who prescribed a myriad of drugs for the three young men.

Tseng, licensed to practice in 1997, opened a storefront medical office in Rowland Heights in 2005. During the timeframe when nine of her patients died in less than three years, Tseng took in $5 million from her clinic and continued dispensing potent and addictive drugs unabated.

Tseng surrendered her license to practice medicine in February 2012 and has been behind bars in lieu of $3 million bail since her March 2012 arrest.

This month she was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for the overdose deaths, in a case that could change how doctors prescribe medication.

The 46-year-old mother of two, wearing blue jail scrubs, apologized to the families of her victims, but the judge sentenced her based on Tseng refusing to take responsibility for her actions during the trial and blaming her patients or pharmacists or even other doctors instead. "[She']) a person who seemingly did not care about the lives of her patients in this case but rather appeared more concerned about distributing dangerous controlled substances in an assembly line fashion so as to collect payments which amounted to her amassing several million dollars," Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge George Lomeli said.

But April Rovero, the mother of one of the victims, was mostly unmoved by Tseng's apologies. Her son, Joey, died after mixing Xanax and oxycodone -- which he had both been prescribed by Tseng -- with alcohol. "It feels too late," Rovero said outside the courtroom. "But it was better to hear something than nothing. But Rovero, who, founded the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse after her son's death, praised the sentence. "Justice has been served," she said.

Outside the courtroom, Peter Osinoff, who represented Tseng before the state medical board said Tseng's prosecution has had a negative impact on physicians and patients. "The doctors are scared out of their minds," he said. "The pendulum has swung so far. The people who need [pain medication] can't get it now."

Other medical experts have echoed his concerns since Tseng was charged in 2012. "When you use the word 'murder,'" said Dr. Peter Staats, president of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, "of course it’s going to have a chilling effect." Staats said he believes an aggressive medical board -- not prosecutors -- should go after reckless doctors. But, he added, any doctor who is prescribing pills knowing that they are being abused or diverted shouldn’t be called a doctor. Read More...

DWC Plans Target Audits in 2016 to Address UR Complaints
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:54:42 - Pacific Time
The Audit and Enforcement Unit of the Division of Workers’ Compensation will be noticing more target audits in 2016 to address utilization review (UR) complaints.

All claims administrators are required by law to have a utilization review program that is governed by written policies and procedures and used to decide whether or not a treatment recommended by an injured worker’s physician is medically necessary under evidence-based guidelines. All UR programs must have a medical director. Any medical decision that modifies or denies a medical treatment request must be made by a reviewing physician, and the services must be within that physician’s scope of practice.

As a reminder, the UR time limit for responding to a treatment request begins when the request for authorization (RFA) is first received, whether by the employer, claims administrator, or utilization review organization (URO).

The decision on an RFA submitted for prospective review must be made within five business days from first receipt of the request, unless additional reasonable medical information is needed to make the decision. In that case, the additional information must be requested by the fifth business day, then up to 14 calendar days from the date of receipt of the original RFA are allowed for making the decision on the RFA. If more than one treatment request is listed on an RFA, all of the treatment requests must be addressed within the applicable timeframe.

The penalties for failure to comply with the UR rules are set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9792.12. For example, if an RFA is not answered, the mandatory penalty is $1,000 for each prospective review. There is also a $100 penalty for a late response to an RFA. If a non-physician delays, denies or modifies a treatment request, there is a $25,000 penalty. Claims administrators are advised to review the UR timeframes with their staff and UROs to ensure the crucial timeframes are being met. Read More...

County Hospital Providing Care to Injured Worker Can Sue to Enforce Lien Rights
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:25:01 - Pacific Time
Jose Tinoco, while employed by Fresh Express, injured Javier Escobar by negligently operating a vehicle. Escobar thereafter received treatment at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, a hospital owned and operated by the County of Santa Clara. The reasonable value of the care provided by the County was alleged to be $1,249,545.38. Escobar sued Tinoco and Fresh Express in Monterey County Superior Court, where he eventually recovered a judgment for $5,689.624.87.

The County asserted a lien against the judgment pursuant to Government Code section 23004.1. Escobar’s attorney, who had stipulated at trial that County’s bill reflected reasonable and necessary charges, now contended that County was not entitled to the full amount of its bill but only to some lesser amount in accordance with schedules promulgated by the WCAB. Fresh Express did not pay the County, but instead delivered a check in the amount of $1,249,545.38 to Escobar’s attorney, Joseph Carcione, Jr., payable to both County and Carcione’s firm.

The County filed suit to recover the full amount, and the trial court sustained the Fresh Express demurer without leave to amend ruling that "the County can no longer pursue its own action against Fresh Express . . . , but must instead seek enforcement of the lien," The court of appeal reversed in the published case of County of Santa Clara v Javier Escobar, and provided guidance on how lien rights are to be enforced.

The trial court concluded in essence that once a county’s lien has attached to a judgment, as it did here, the county’s independent right of action ceases to exist. The trial court took the language of Government Code section 23004.1 to mean in essence that a county’s right of action continues only as a lien. But the court of appeal disagreed noting that nothing in the language of the statute declares in definite language that the lien, once attached, is all that remains of the county’s original right of action. The manifest purpose of section 23004.1 is to provide counties with a source of recompense for the expenses incurred by them - and their taxpayers - in providing medical services necessitated by tortious conduct. "Obviously this purpose is ill served by permitting the tortfeasor to excuse itself from this obligation by turning control of the claimed funds over to the injured patient. The intent of the statute is best effectuated by providing counties with a straightforward remedy against the recalcitrant tortfeasor cum judgment creditor."

The court agreed that Fresh Express should have been able to disentangle itself from any dispute between Escobar and County, and to obtain a satisfaction of judgment by paying the full amount of the judgment, but did not agree that it could accomplish these objectives by simply writing a check payable to both of the competing claimants. There were and are far more suitable remedies for one in Fresh Express’s situation. It has simply failed to avail itself of them. It could, for example, bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.

"We conclude that County’s right of action under section 23004.1 survived the attachment of its lien and that County was entitled to revive it, as it sought to do here, when Fresh Express surrendered control of the liened funds to Escobar’s attorney. It follows that the trial court erred by sustaining Fresh Express’s demurrer and that the judgment predicated on that ruling must be reversed." Read More...

Glendora Physician to be Sentenced for Illegal Painkiller Distribution
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:24:53 - Pacific Time
A medical doctor who served as the face of a sham Los Angeles clinic pleaded guilty to federal drug trafficking and money laundering charges connected to her illegal distribution of the powerful painkiller best known by the brand name OxyContin. Dr. Madhu Garg, 64, of Glendora, pleaded guilty to one count of illegally distributing oxycodone and one count of money laundering for transferring the proceeds of criminal activity to a Malaysian bank account. A sentencing hearing is set for May 26. Garg faces a statutory maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison.

Garg was arrested in January 2015, along with the other operators of the now-defunct Southfork Medical Clinic in Los Angeles. A federal grand jury indictment charged seven defendants with conspiring to sell medically unnecessary prescriptions for drugs that included oxycodone, hydrocodone (commonly sold under the brand names Vicodin, Norco and Lortab), alprazolam (best known by the brand name Xanax), carisoprodol (a muscle relaxant sold under the brand name Soma) and promethazine with codeine (a cough syrup sold on the street as "purple drank" and "sizzurp").

As part of her guilty plea, Garg admitted that she issued prescriptions for those drugs to Southfork "patients" at the instructions of the owner of the clinic, Jagehauel Gillespie, and that she knew the "patients" did not actually need the drugs. In a plea agreement filed in United States District Court, Garg "acknowledges that she intentionally prescribed the drugs outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose."

Records maintained by the State of California show that Garg issued more than 10,000 prescriptions for controlled drugs - the vast majority of which were for hydrocodone or alprazolam - over the year-long period that she worked at Southfork. Financial records show that, over the same time period, Garg received more than $300,000 in cash and transferred more than $90,000 to bank accounts held in Thailand and Malaysia.

During the investigation, Garg issued prescriptions for oxycodone and promethazine with codeine to undercover agents on eight occasions. During one of the meetings, Garg gave a prescription to an undercover witness, and then Garg agreed to issue a new prescription to the witness the following week under a false name.

"The abuse of prescriptions drugs continue to take a horrific toll on public health and safety in our communities," said Stephen G. Azzam, Acting Special Agent in Charge of DEA’s Los Angeles Field Division. "The DEA will continue to work with our partner agencies to identify and investigate doctors who are using their medical licenses to illegally deal drugs."

The conspirators also used Los Angeles as a base of operations to acquire and deliver bulk shipments of prescription drugs to Texas, according to court documents. Furthermore, according to court records, Garg continued to assist Gillespie in acquiring oxycodone from international wholesalers even after the Medical Board of California revoked Garg’s license in December 2013.

Previously in this case, five of the other defendants have pleaded guilty, including Gillespie, who was sentenced in November to six years in federal prison. One other defendant is pending trial, which is scheduled for later this year.

The investigation into Garg was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Los Angeles and Houston field divisions, IRS - Criminal Investigation, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the California Department of Justice, and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Read More...

WCAB Clarifies MPN Access Standards for PTPs
Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:30:00 - Pacific Time
Maria Soto sustained an injury to her right shoulder, neck and low back while employed as an assembler by Sambrailo Packaging in Santa Maria. She was referred for treatment to Zenith's MPN in Santa Maria, Central Coast Industrial Care, where applicant lives and worked. Based upon her request for a referral from a primary treating physician to an orthopedic surgeon, Central Coast referred applicant to two orthopedic specialists in Solvang. Applicant states that the "MPN included 9 orthopedic doctors but only one would treat backs." Applicant therefore notified Zenith that the MPN did not meet the applicable access standards and selected Dr. Scheinberg, a non-MPN physician located in Santa Barbara, approximately 70 miles away, to treat her shoulder and back. Defendant declined to authorize such treatment outside the MPN.

The parties stipulated that the defendant had a validly formed MPN. At issue was whether the MPN complied with the MPN physician access standards of having three orthopedists willing to treat the applicant. They stipulated there was only one. At a subsequent hearing applicant agreed to treat with an MPN neurosurgeon, Dr. Kissel, but Dr. Kissel declined to accept the applicant.

Zenith contends that that under rural access standards it has 46 physicians within 30 miles or 60 minutes who are fully qualified to act as a primary treating physician in this case (even though they were not orthopedists.)

The WCJ held that Soto was entitled to obtain medical treatment outside defendant's MPN, finding defendant's MPN was not in compliance with the applicable access standards by not having three orthopedic specialists willing to treat applicant within the applicable geographic area. On reconsideration, the WCAB reversed in the panel decision of Soto v Sambrailo Packaging; Zenith Insurance Co.

The MPN is required to have "an adequate number and type of physicians . . . to treat common injuries experienced by injured employees based on the type of occupation or industry in which the employee is engaged, and the geographic area where the employees are employed." (Lab. Code, §4616(a)(l ).) The question is whether defendant's MPN provides the requisite selection of physicians available to assume the role of a primary treating physician. The Legislature intended that an injured worker will be able to select a primary treating physician who has the necessary specialization or expertise in treating her injury. Labor Code section 4616.3(d)(2) provides that "[t]reatment by a specialist who is not a member of the medical provider network may be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the medical provider network does not contain a physician who can provide the approved treatment and the treatment is approved by the employer or insurer."

A search of Zenith MPN physicians who were available within 60 miles of the employer's zip code identified 79 providers, and there were 33 physicians within 30 miles. Of those, applicant's condition could be treated by physicians who wished to practice as a primary treating physician who were familiar with treating the type of injury at issue. Thus, defendant has provided evidence that there are a sufficient number of available physicians within the rural geographic area with specialties capable of providing applicant's primary care, even if a physician with the specific specialty selected by applicant is unavailable. If applicant requires specialty medical treatment, applicant can be referred to specialist by her primary treating physician selected from within the MPN. If an MPN specialist is not available within the applicable rural access standards, applicant may be referred to a non-MPN specialist. However, applicant has not establish that defendant has violated the applicable rural access standards for selecting her primary treating physician. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to select a physician as her primary treating physician, at defendant's expense Read More...

DWC Announces Recipients of 2016 Carrie Nevans Community Service Award
Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:29:52 - Pacific Time
The Division of Workers’ Compensation has announced the winners of the 2016 Carrie Nevans Community Service Award. Both recipients are commissioners on the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC). This year’s award recipient in Southern California is Martin Brady, the Schools Insurance Authority executive director. Christy Bouma, Capitol Connection president, is the Northern California recipient. The awards will be presented at the upcoming 23rd annual DWC educational conference luncheons.

Martin Brady is the executive director of the Schools Insurance Authority in Sacramento, where he has worked since 1998. He was appointed by the Governor to CHSWC in 2012 to represent employers. Over the course of his career, Mr. Brady has also served as a member of the California Joint Powers Authority, the California Coalition on Workers’ Compensation, the Public Agency Risk Managers Association, the Public School Risk Institute, the Association of Governmental Risk Pools, and the Public Risk Management Association. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that public employer needs and concerns are addressed in the workers’ compensation system, including in the SB 863 reforms, and he has been instrumental in supporting programs to prevent workers’ compensation injuries that have helped to reduce costs for employers and protect California employees.

Christy Bouma is the president of Capitol Connection in Sacramento. She was appointed by the Governor to CHSWC in 2012 to represent labor. Ms. Bouma has supported the California Professional Firefighters, the California School Employees Association government advocacy team, the State Building and Construction Trades Council, and the Service Employees International Union on special legislative projects. She is affiliated with the Institute of Government Advocates, the Leadership California Institute, and the CompScope Advisory Committee of the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute. She has been a critical partner in supporting the recent workers’ compensation reforms and preserving benefits for workers in the state, especially those involved in public safety.

The DWC’s 23rd annual educational conference is the largest workers’ compensation training in the state and allows claims administrators, attorneys, medical providers, return to work specialists, employers, and others to learn about the most recent developments in the system as well as ongoing DWC programs. The Los Angeles conference (February 25-26) at the LAX Marriott is almost sold out; registration is still open for the Oakland training (March 3-4) at the Oakland Marriott City Center Hotel. Read More...

WCAB Suspends Professional Lien Services Hearing Rep
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:54:23 - Pacific Time
On August 14, 2013, the WCJ in the case of Trinh v Tzeng Long USA Inc. issued an Order For Costs And Sanctions against Professional Lien Services, Inc., (PLS), ordering it to pay defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,355 along with a separate court sanction of $1,000. The sanctions were imposed for PLS’s bad faith and frivolous conduct in pursuing a trial on the issues of penalty and interest when it did not offer evidence at the trial adequate to meet its initial burden of proof.

Neither PLS nor its representative, Mike Traw petitioned for reconsideration or otherwise appealed the August 14, 2013 Sanction Order and it is now final and binding for all purposes.

Deputy Commissioner Rick Dietrich, Secretary of the Appeals Board, notified PLS in October 2013 that payment of the $1,000 court sanction was expected within ten days and further advised that failure to pay the sanction was grounds for suspending the privilege of appearing before the WCAB pursuant to section 4907. PLS replied that it was petitioning for reconsideration, but that was not the case.

Defendant also made unsuccessful efforts to recover the costs and attorney’s fees that PLS is obligated to pay as part of the Sanction Order. Thus the En Banc panel concluded "None of the efforts by the Appeals Board and the defendant have resulted in voluntary compliance with the August 14, 2013 Sanction Order by PLS and Mr. Traw, and it appears they are willfully disobeying the August 14, 2013 Sanction Order."

Section 4907(a)(2) provides for suspension of the privilege of appearing before the WCAB for, "failure to pay final order of sanctions, attorney’s fees, or costs, issued under Section 5813." The failure to comply with an order or regulation of the WCAB, including an order to pay a sanction, is an interference with the judicial process that provides good cause for suspending or removing the privilege of appearing before the WCAB.

For this reason it was ordered last August that "that the Appeals Board intends to suspend the privilege of Professional Lien Services, Inc., and Mike Traw of appearing before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for ninety (90) days unless good cause is shown why the suspensions should not be imposed."

Since then, no response to the Notice Of Intention was received from Mike Traw. The Appeals Board received a letter from Mark Blakely on the letterhead of PLS that stated that he acquired PLS from the prior owners and he requested a 60 day extension of the time which was granted. He requested a second 60 day extension which was also granted. No further response has been received from Mr. Blakely or PLS, and the two allowed extensions of time to respond have expired.

Thus, the WCAB sitting en banc issued its Decision After Removal, suspending the privilege of Mike Traw of appearing before the WCAB but did not suspend the privilege of Mark Blakely or PLS. However, the earlier ordered sanctions against PLS remain in full force and effect, and PLS continues to be liable sfor payment of those ordered sanctions. Read More...

The DWC Proposes a New MTUS Guideline for Mental Illness Treatment
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:54:14 - Pacific Time
The medical treatment utilization schedule (MTUS) provides medical treatment guidelines for utilization review and an analytical framework for the evaluation and treatment of injured workers. It helps medical providers understand which evidenced-based treatments have been effective in providing improved medical outcomes to those workers, and guides the physicians involved in the UR and IMR process. In 2004 the Legislature charged the DWC administrative director (AD) with adopting an MTUS that would be presumed correct on the issue of extent and scope of medical treatment, and made the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition, (ACOEM) the standard until the adoption of an MTUS by the AD.  Thus the ACOEM Guideline was a temporary solution.

After initial adoption, the MTUS is to be updated improving upon the original ACOEM edition. For example, the current version of the MTUS added new guidelines for chronic pain and postsurgical physical medicine treatment., topics not covered in the ACOEM Guideline. The MTUS was also reorganized to restructure the MTUS into a clinical topics format, which will allow for easier updates of the guidelines.

An continuing the effort to improve the Guideline, the Division of Workers’ Compensation has now posted the proposed Mental Illness and Stress Guideline to update the current Stress Related Conditions Guideline of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule set forth in section 9792.23.8 to its online forum.

Members of the public may review and comment on the proposals until February 16, 2016. The proposed amendment to the regulations incorporate by reference the March 25, 2015 version of the Official Disability Guideline’s "Mental Illness and Stress Guideline" which the DWC has adopted with permission from the publisher. The new guideline is 582 pages long! Previously the MTUS relied on the language of the Stress Related Conditions Chapter of the ACOEM Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition (2004), Chapter 15. By contrast, the ACOEM guideline on mental heath issues was extremely vague and terse. The new effort addresses both of those criticisms.

As previously announced, the DWC will be updating all of the clinical topic medical treatment guidelines of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule. This online forum follows the October 2015 online forum which posted two new additional guidelines, the proposed Occupational Interstitial Lung Disease Guideline and the Occupational/Work Related Asthma Guideline. Once the online forums have been completed for each specific clinical topic, the DWC will combine all of the proposed regulatory updates and additions to section 9792.23 et seq. into one rulemaking package. Read More...

Past Week News Archive

MAXIMUS Reports 19% Revenue Growth and More to Come From Government Programs: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 08:06:25 - Pacific Time: Read More...

Owner and Operator of DME Company Sent to Federal Prison: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 08:06:16 - Pacific Time: Read More...

Healthcare Organizations Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Limit Fraud Cases: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:02:43 - Pacific Time: Read More...

CWCI Study Shows Rising Medical-Legal Costs: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:02:36 - Pacific Time: Read More...

Drugmakers Fight Over Rights to Generic OxyContin: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 06:23:41 - Pacific Time: Read More...

Committee in Oversight and Government Reform Probes Drug Pricing: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 06:23:33 - Pacific Time: Read More...

WCAB Panel Decision Continues Erosion of UR/IMR Jurisdiction: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 06:45:05 - Pacific Time: Read More...

DWC Administrative Director Destie Overpeck Moves to State Bar: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 06:44:55 - Pacific Time: Read More...

CCWC Provides Forecast of Current Legislative Session: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:06:54 - Pacific Time: Read More...

DWC Schedules Public Forum on Drug Formulary Regulations: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:06:48 - Pacific Time: Read More...