APRIL

2005

Pioneers Hospital v. ICAO, 04CA0839, (April 7, 2005):  Pro Se Claimant sustained a knee injury while working.  Respondents denied compensability.  Respondents had Claimant evaluated by a medical specialist (IME physician) to determine if Claimant’s injury was work-related. 

   After the evaluation, Respondents sched-uled a deposition with the IME physician and notified Claimant.  Soon after, Re-spondents conducted the deposition of the IME physician with Claimant. 

   Claimant retained an attorney before the hearing.  At hearing, Claimant’s attorney requested  penalties for Respondents’ fail-ure to request permission from an Admin-istrative Law Judge (ALJ) before conduct-ing the deposition of the IME physician.

   The ALJ fined Respondents $500 for: (1) failure to request permission to engage in discovery with a pro se Claimant, pursuant to C.R.S. 8-43-207(1)(e) and, (2) failure to request an order before taking a deposition, pursuant to Rule VIII(E)(2)(b), W.C.R.P. 

   The Industrial Claim Appeals Office

(ICAO) affirmed the penalty.

   The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the ICAO and ALJ orders based solely on Rule VIII(E)(2)(b), W.C.R.P.  The CA held Re-spondents were required to obtain an order before conducting a deposition, pursuant to Rule VIII(E)(2)(b).  The CA did not ad-dress the pro se Claimant discovery issue pursuant to C.R.S. 8-43-207(1)(e). 

   Rule VIII(E)(2)(b) states: Depositions of

Please RSVP to Clifton, Hook & Bovarnick, P.C., Seminar

 

FREE BREAKFAST & LUNCH!

 

You are invited to attend the annual Workers’ Compensation Seminar presented by Clifton, Hook & Bovarnick, P.C.

 

TOPICS WILL INCLUDE:

Medicare Set Aside Agreements

                 Interrelationship between Workers’ Compensation and Employment Law

                 Recent Case Law and Legislative Enactments

 

When:     Thursday, May 26, 2005, from 8 a.m. to noon

Where:    Sheraton Hotel East, 6363 E. Hampden Ave., Denver, CO, 80222 (Hampden and I-25)

 

We will begin with a continental breakfast at 7:30 a.m., followed by the seminar at 8:00 a.m., and a lunch buffet at noon.

Seating is limited, so please RSVP with names of attendees by May 12, 2005. 

Please contact Tara Salazar at (303) 988-7692 or tsalazar@chbpc.com.   

Respondents Fined for Deposition without Order

other witnesses may be taken upon written motion, order, and written notice to all parties.  The CA held there is no difference between evidentiary depositions, and dis-covery depositions, under this rule. 

   Therefore, the CA affirmed the $500 penalty because Respondents conducted a deposition without first filing a motion and obtaining an order, pursuant to Rule VIII(E)(2)(b), W.C.R.P.

condition, Respondents’ motions to compel responses to interrogatories seeking this data are being denied if no hearing is scheduled, pursuant to Rule VIII, W.C.R.P., and a strict reading of C.R.S. 8-43-207(1)(e), which allows discovery (only) when a hearing is scheduled.

   After an admission has been filed, you may need to retain counsel, or discuss with

   The initial claim investigation stage of a case should include requests for medical, employment, and insurance record re-leases, along with disclosure by Claimant of pre-injury medical providers, employ-ers, and injuries, for the last 5 to 10 years.    

   This early retrieval of information is be-coming more critical.  If the carrier admits liability and later wishes to question whether medical treatment is reasonable, necessary, and/or related to a pre-existing

Obtain Discovery Early

by Clyde E. Hook