Workers' Compensation Defense Attorney
Certified Specialist Workers Compensation Law
California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization
Managing Partner of Purinton, Jimenez, Labo & Wu, LLP
Here’s some trivia for you. I have the world’s crappiest cell phone. I get a lot of flack for my cell phone. It’s beat to hell, got a cracked screen, dented, scratched, and it’s ridiculously old.
Yesterday the 6th Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a Writ of Review, denied Defendants’ request for a stay, and indicated that the matter would be set for oral argument. ((Photo courtesy of jjjohn.)) If you would rather just read what they have to say, here it goes:
Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice, filed on 10/16/09 is denied. The petition for writ of review is granted as follows: Let a writ of review issue ordering the WCAB to certify & return to this court is official record in Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District & Keenan & Associates, WCAB case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO0254688), not later than 3/25/10. Respondents may file opposition on 3/25/10. Petitioners my reply to the opposition in 20 days after the opposition is filed in this court. The matter will be placed on calendar at a time & place to be specified by court order. Any party desiring oral argument shall so inform this court in writing on 3/25/10 by completing & returning to this court the attached “request for oral argument” form (P, E, WD)
What does this mean for you? Well, it means at least another four months of Almarez/Guzman II.
The fastest I recall a case going from the granting of a Writ of Review to to Order after oral argument was about four months. In that case (Rollick) the Court of Appeals had basically already made up their minds about the issues and had allotted each side 10 minutes of argument. The oral argument in that case took place about four months after the Writ was granted and Order issued almost immediately after argument. However, the issues presented by Almarez/Guzman II are considerably more intricate.
For more analysis on this decision check out the article on WCExec!
Yesterday I was driving back from Modesto and I noticed a CHP officer out of the corner of my eye. ((Photo courtesy of OregonDOT)) My first instinct is always to double check my speed.
However, yesterday afternoon I noticed this officer was on his cell, left elbow propped up on the edge of the window, yakking away, while tailgating a semi in the slow lane.
Not wanting to get pulled over for driving under the influence of irony, I didn’t take a picture with my phone.
BTW, I’ve got to be in San Francisco this afternoon – stop me and say hello!
Yesterday I had an appearance in San Jose and then another up in San Rafael. From San Jose I drove up through San Francisco, northbound over the Golden Gate Bridge, to my appearance, then back over to Contra Costa County via the Richmond Bridge. ((Photo courtesy of worldsurfer))
Wait for it…
The Golden Gate is only toll southbound and the Richmond is only toll westbound. I traveled over two bridges and didn’t pay a single toll!
Yes, yes, I know we’re supposed to have a new schedule per 8 CCR 9805, but the proposed draft 2009 PDRS was never approved.
Overall, the draft 2009 Permanent Disability Schedule doesn’t change much from the existing 2005 schedule. The biggest change is in the application of the FEC rank adjustment. Instead of increasing permanent disability between 10% and 40%, the proposed FEC rank system would increase permanent disability between 20% and 50%. Additionally, the proposal suggested juggling the various ranks among the body regions. If you’re curious about the exact proposed changes, the DWC Newsline gave a really great overview back on May 9, 2008.
