Workers' Compensation Attorneys Who Get Results | (619) 236-8550|info@dgcattorneys.com

About Hunter Hirsch

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Hunter Hirsch has created 69 blog entries.

Christopher Vincent, Associate Attorney (DGC Orange County), Settles Skull Fracture Claim with Pro Per Claimant and Precludes Protracted Litigation

This matter was referred to Chris Vincent on February 11, 2021 with instruction to draft a C&R for $20,000.00 to secure the unrepresented injured worker’s agreement so that an Order Approving could be attained. The facts were not run-of-the-mill.

The claimant, a restaurant worker, had a history of grand mal seizures since age 15 and would typically experience one every two to three months. While working on March 4, 2019, he did have such a seizure, causing him to fall to the ground, hitting his head and losing consciousness. He was rushed to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a skull fracture, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and subdural hematoma.

Fortunately, the claimant made a substantial recovery, although he continued to experience headaches, fatigue, nervousness, moments of depression, trouble processing stimuli, and difficulty with short-term memory. He was temporarily totally disabled for about six and a half months, then gradually returned to part-time and eventually full-time work. He later voluntarily separated from his employment.

On June 17, 2020, he was evaluated by a panel QME neurologist, who assessed 8% WPI based on benign forgetfulness. Any psychological factors were deferred to the appropriate specialist. The claimant did not request a second QME panel. The PD rating was 11%.

Chris opted for a low-pressure approach, with telephone communication and occasional follow-up emails, building rapport and allowing the claimant time to review the settlement documents and consider options. Chris promptly and thoughtfully answered a number of the claimant’s questions regarding the proposed settlement. In turn, the claimant agreed to, signed, and returned the C&R to Chris in decidedly quick fashion. An Order Approving was issued on March 16, 2021.

This claim had a high risk of multiple additional QME panels and a substantially higher settlement if it became litigated. Based on the communication with the claimant, he appeared to be a sophisticated individual who nonetheless could have chosen to retain counsel. However, it is most likely that the claims examiner’s and Chris’ cordial, low-key approach played a large role in this pro per claimant’s decision to settle.

You can read redacted versions of the Compromise and Release and Order Approving Compromise and Release below.

.

Compromise and Release: Click here

Order Approving Compromise and Release: Click here

.

Media Contacts:                                                                                                                      

Company Name: Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen, APC
Full Name: David Jankosky, DGC Client Services (213-278-1513)
Email Address: djankosky@dgcattorneys.com

2021-05-14T11:28:40-07:00May 14th, 2021|News Articles|
Read More

Celebrating DGC Attorney Jason L. Buscaino, Appointed WCJ In San Bernardino

Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen is pleased to announce the appointment of Attorney Jason L. Buscaino as a workers’ compensation judge for the DWC district office in San Bernardino.  Our firm is grateful to Jason for the leadership and integrity he has exhibited both in his relationships within the firm and in his successful representation of our clients.

Jason has been a skillful defense litigator for DGC clients, utilizing his extensive legal knowledge and excellent communication skills.  He has earned the respect of claims examiners, employers, and brokers for his ability to settle complex claims while considering the interests of everyone involved.

Jason is a graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.  He had gained experience working in civil matters and in the representation of applicants before joining DGC.  Partner Mark Gilmor praised Jason’s achievements saying, “It makes perfect sense that the State would seek to have on the bench a person with Jason’s character, ethical standards, legal knowledge, and varied experience.”

Jason will begin his position with the State of California later in January 2021.

On behalf of our entire DGC family, thank you, Jason.  We wish you all the best in your new endeavor.  We will miss you at DGC.

Sincerely,

Bill Dietz, Mark Gilmor, and Avery Chazen

Media Contacts:                                                                                                                      

Company Name: Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen, APC
Full Name: David Jankosky, DGC Client Services (213-278-1513)
Email Address: djankosky@dgcattorneys.com

2023-06-16T09:23:36-07:00January 12th, 2021|News Articles|
Read More

COVID-19 Update from Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen – Executive Order N-62-20, Non-Presumption Claims, and WCAB News

EXECUTIVE ORDER N-62-20, ISSUED AND EFFECTIVE 05/06/2020

  • Covered dates of potential exposure – 03/19/2020 – 07/05/2020.
  • Temporary rebuttable presumption of injury AOE/COE for an employee’s COVID-19-related illness if:
    • The work was performed on or after 03/19/20.
    • The employee was directed by the employer to perform work at a location other than the employee’s home.
    • The employee tested positive for or was diagnosed with COVID-19 within 14 days after a day that the employee worked at the employer’s direction.
    • A California-licensed physician made the initial diagnosis, and that diagnosis is confirmed by further testing within 30 days of the date of the diagnosis.
  • Period to reject claim is shortened to 30 days from date of filing of claim form.
  • If not rejected within the 30-day period, the claim is presumed compensable, unless rebutted by evidence only discovered after the 30-day period.
  • All workers’ compensation benefits, including death benefits, available.
  • Permanent disability is subject to apportionment.
  • If employee has paid sick leave (PSL) benefits specifically available in response to COVID-19, those benefits must be exhausted before any TD or LC 4850 benefits will be due and payable.
  • No waiting period for TD.
  • For TD before 05/06/2020 – If the employee tested positive or was diagnosed with COVID-19 before 05/06/2020, then by 05/21/2020, employee must obtain a certification documenting the period for which the employee was TD and unable to work, and must be re-certified every 15 days thereafter, for the first 45 days after the diagnosis.
  • For TD after 05/06/2020 – If the employee tests positive or is diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after 05/06/2020, the employee must be certified for TD within the first 15 days after the initial diagnosis, and must be re-certified every 15 days thereafter, for the first 45 days after the diagnosis.
  • The physician certifying TD must hold a California physician and surgeon license.
  • The Department of Industrial Relations is precluded from collecting any death benefit payment arising out of claims covered by the Order.
  • The Order applies to workers’ compensation insurers writing policies that provide coverage in California, self-insured employers, and any other employer carrying its own risk, including the State of California.

Tips for Employers:

    • If an employee tested positive or was diagnosed with COVID-19 between 03/19/2020 to the present, after working at the employer’s direction at a location other than the employee’s residence, provide a claim form to the employee as soon as possible, if not done previously.
    • Going forward up to and including 07/19/2020 (14 days after the last date of the Order’s specified exposure period), provide a claim form within 24 hours of obtaining knowledge, from any source, that employee tested positive for or was diagnosed with COVID-19 after working at the employer’s direction at a job site that is not the employee’s residence.

PROVIDING CLAIM FORMS TO EMPLOYEES NOT COVERED BY THE ORDER

  • A blanket approach to providing claims forms during the pandemic is not recommended. An employee is likely to think the form must be completed and filed, even if he or she has not been exposed to the coronavirus.  Once the claim form is filed, a claim is created, which triggers rights and obligations.  The resulting flood of claims would be highly burdensome.
  • Here are some guidelines that should help:
    • A claim form must be provided if an employee asks for one.
    • A claim form must be provided if an employer receives knowledge, from any source, that (1) the employee was diagnosed with COVID-19 and (2) either it is work-related, or the employee is claiming it is work-related.
    • If a claim form is not required to be provided, consider the nature of the employee’s work, the work environment (working remotely?), whether the employee has actually tested positive for the novel coronavirus or been diagnosed with COVID-19, whether the employee has health insurance, and any factors unique to the situation. The facts may weigh in favor of providing a claim form.

Reminder for Employers:

    • Providing a claim form does not mean acceptance of the claim.

COMPENSABILITY OF COVID-19 CLAIMS FILED BY EMPLOYEES NOT COVERED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

  • If the new presumption of injury AOE/COE does not apply to a claim, an employee can litigate injury AOE/COE.
  • Normally, no exposure for WC benefits for non-occupational diseases, which is what COVID-19 is, since the novel coronavirus is found throughout the world and can affect anyone, not just employees.
  • The employee will prevail if there is substantial evidence that his or her risk of exposure to the novel coronavirus was probably higher than the general public’s. (Note: scientific certainty is not required to be proven.)
  • Compensability can extend to injuries from the side effects of medications or procedures used to treat COVID-19, not just injuries from the direct damage wrought by the novel coronavirus.

NON-COVID-19 INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES WORKING FROM HOME WHILE STAY-AT-HOME ORDER IS EFFECTIVE

  • If employer has directed employee to work from home, or given permission, then the employee’s home becomes a second job site, and employer benefits from employee’s services, so injury at home will probably be compensable.
  • The personal comfort doctrine is another theory that will support compensability of an injury such as slipping and falling in the bathroom.

WCAB NEWS The Boards remain closed to the public at this time.  Hearings, now including case-in-chief trials, are being conducted telephonically by calling the WCJs’ telephone conference lines. Documents are to be filed electronically via EAMS or JET File or paper filing by U.S. Mail.  (If none of those filing procedures will work, email filing is a last resort.) To learn the latest changes in WCAB policies and procedures, you can check for news releases at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dirnews

 

Media Contacts: Company Name:  Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen, APC
Industry:  California workers’ compensation defense
Full Name:  David Jankosky, DGC Client Services
Email Address:  djankosky@dgcattorneys.com

2023-04-14T05:28:37-07:00May 13th, 2020|COVID-19 News|
Read More

A Message from Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen – Leadership, Technology, and Service

Our Commitment To You

As we continue to monitor the impact of COVID-19, we maintain our focus on the well-being of our employees, customers and their families. We want to reassure you of the resilience of our business as we respond to this evolving situation.  We will provide continuity and reliability with communication and case handling.  Our leadership team is actively monitoring the status of our communities, government agencies and WCAB processes.  We are actively working with our IT department to ensure that all remote work is done in an uninterrupted fashion.

Remote Work Is Already Part Of Our Business

We want to assure you that we were already designed to work remotely.  Our case management system is web-based and our attorneys can log in remotely from anywhere.  This along with use of email and phones will allow the same level of customer service and legal handling that we know you expect.  Our attorneys will be reaching out to you to ensure that you have their cell phone numbers and to maintain open communications.  If you leave a voicemail, you will get a prompt return phone call.  While our attorneys will have remote access, we will have litigation support in our offices to the extent it is appropriate.

In this time of uncertainty, we want you to know that we will be a reliable constant in providing legal handling.  We will continue to provide the same level of commitment, dedication and hard work.  We wish you and your families all the best during these times.

Very truly yours, Bill, Mark and Avery
Managing Partners for DGC Attorneys

2020-08-26T10:22:55-07:00March 19th, 2020|COVID-19 News|
Read More

DGC Attorney, Erin Ward-Dugan (Partner of Litigation Management, Long Beach), Obtains Take Nothing Against Serial Claimant

The seventh time was not the charm for the claimant.  Between February 2014 and June 2018, she had been successful in obtaining three settlements of six workers’ compensation claims (five CTs and one specific) that she filed against the employer after being terminated upon the discovery that multiple Social Security numbers she was using were invalid. The settlements totaled $24,700.00.  Either before or after each settlement, she applied for work at a different employer location, using a variation of her name and a different SSN.

She succeeded in being hired at a fourth employer location in October 2017, but in May 2018, after about six months, she was terminated for cause.  Then in May 2019, she filed a post-termination CT claim, alleging injury to her right knee.  The claim was promptly denied on the grounds of being a post-termination claim and lacking supporting medical evidence.

In September 2019, the claims administrator asked Erin Ward-Dugan to substitute in and take over defending the claim.  After quickly completing discovery, she recommended taking the case to trial.  There did not appear to be substantial medical evidence to support a finding that the applicant had sustained an injury, and there was ample evidence for attacking the applicant’s credibility.

Trial took place on December 17, 2019.  The applicant’s attorney declined to call the applicant as a witness and proceed with direct examination, so Erin called her to the stand for cross-examination.  Erin proceeded with detailed questioning about her prior claims, including all of her various aliases and false Social Security numbers used to obtain employment, her numerous post-termination claims of injury to many of the same body parts, and the settlements obtained.  When questioned about the current CT injury claim, the applicant tried to change the injury to a specific.  She admitted that she did not seek medical treatment for over a year after her termination and did not tell her doctor about her injury history.  When asked questions about her work for a subsequent employer (essentially the same type of work she did for the defendant), the claimant invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Just five weeks later, the WCJ issued a Findings and Order that claimant take nothing.  There was no substantial evidence to support a finding of injury.  The limited medical reports that claimant relied on were deficient since the claimant had not disclosed her multiple prior alleged injuries, claim history, or subsequent job with a different employer to the doctor.  Although the WCJ did not directly comment on the claimant’s credibility, there is little doubt that the documentary evidence that Erin introduced and the damaging testimony that she elicited on cross-examination rendered the claimant a poor witness on her own behalf.

The applicant did not appeal the Findings and Order.  The case has been referred to the SIU for additional fraud investigation.

You can read redacted versions of the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence and Findings of Fact and Findings And Order below.

 

Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence: Click here

Findings of Fact and Findings And Order: Click here

 

Media Contacts:
Company Name:  Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen, APC
Industry:  California workers’ compensation defense
Full Name:  David Jankosky, DGC Client Services (818-654-9911, Ex. 1231)
Email Address:  djankosky@dgcattorneys.com

2020-03-12T13:27:50-07:00March 13th, 2020|News Articles|
Read More

DGC Attorney, Jason Buscaino (Ontario) Wins on Compensable Consequence Body Parts, Avoids Multiple PQMEs, and WCAB Denies Applicant’s Reconsideration Effort.

On 01/29/16, Applicant suffered burns to his feet while handling caustic materials at work.  The injury was accepted, and benefits were provided.  Ultimately, Applicant was evaluated by a PQME in podiatry.

On 12/27/17, Applicant sustained injuries to his left hand, fingers, and chest while using a table saw at home.  He claimed that this was a compensable consequence on the theory that the burns to his feet caused him to lose balance and suffer further injury.  On 6/07/18, Applicant fell in the street while walking home and sustained a back injury, a head injury, a broken orbital bone, and loss of consciousness.  He later claimed that this fall was another compensable consequence, alleging that the burns to his feet caused him to lose his balance and fall.   

Applicant’s counsel amended the claim to add the left hand, left fingers, chest, head, left eye, left orbital bone, and back.  Jason Buscaino, an experienced California workers’ compensation defense attorney, believed the newly alleged compensable consequence injuries were questionable, particularly Applicant’s fall in the street, as Applicant had originally reported to his PTP that he experienced non-industrial dizziness, which caused him to fall.  Interestingly, the PTP’s next report changed the narrative, indicating that Applicant lost his balance, causing him to fall and then feel dizzy.

As part of a diligent California workers’ compensation defense investigation of the newly alleged compensable consequence injuries, Jason secured records from Applicant’s private medical providers.  These medical records, particularly those from the emergency room visits, did not mention anything about the industrial burns to his feet but did detail different factual scenarios:             

As to the table saw incident, the records documented that the table saw propelled a wooden plank backwards toward the Applicant at a high rate of speed, causing injury; and as to the fall, the records documented that Applicant suffered a syncope episode, causing his collapse in the middle of the street, resulting in injuries. 

Jason filed a DOR for an MSC to either settle the case or set it for trial.  At the MSC, Applicant’s counsel sought an order allowing additional QME panels in orthopedic surgery, neurology, and ophthalmology.  Jason successfully argued that before allowing the three additional QME panels, the WCAB needed to first make the factual determination as to whether the subsequent incidents were related to the original injury.  The MSC judge agreed and allowed the case to be set for trial. 

At trial, Applicant and his wife maintained that the industrial burns to his feet caused him to lose his footing and slip, resulting in both the table saw incident and the fall.  When Jason cross-examined them, he used the emergency room records in a successful attack on the credibility of their testimonies.

The WCJ found permanent disability from the admitted injury to Applicant’s feet based on the podiatry PQME.  The WCJ also found that Applicant did not sustain injury to his left eye, left orbital bone, left hand, left middle fingers, left ribcage, and back as a compensable consequence. 

Applicant filed a petition for reconsideration.   In this instance, given their high level of confidence in the position taken at trial and the strength of the WCJ’s decision, no answer was filed.  The WCAB denied Applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration.  With the trial results upheld on appeal, Jason successfully shut down this claim and avoided at least three additional PQMEs, which would have prolonged the litigation, and potential additional exposure for benefits.

You can read redacted versions of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration and Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision below.

 

Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration: Click here

Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration: Click here

Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision: Click here

 

Media Contacts:
Company Name:  Dietz, Gilmor & Chazen, APC
Industry:  California workers’ compensation defense
Full Name:  David Jankosky, DGC Client Services (818-654-9911, Ex. 1231)
Email Address:  djankosky@dgcattorneys.com

2023-04-13T05:25:40-07:00February 26th, 2020|News Articles|
Read More
Go to Top