• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Call us today for help!  (818) 707-1488

  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Friedman + Bartoumian

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense
    • Business Litigation
    • Insurance Law
    • Employment and Labor Law
  • Attorneys
    • Heywood G. Friedman, Partner
    • Haik K. Bartoumian, Partner
    • All Attorneys
  • Testimonials
  • Legal Art
  • Serving the Community
  • Careers
  • Blog
  • In Memory of Paul Lee
  • Contact
  • Search

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense
    • Business Litigation
    • Insurance Law
    • Employment and Labor Law
  • Attorneys
    • Heywood G. Friedman, Partner
    • Haik K. Bartoumian, Partner
    • All Attorneys
  • Testimonials
  • Legal Art
  • Serving the Community
  • Careers
  • Blog
  • In Memory of Paul Lee
  • Contact
  • Search

Contact Us Today!

If you see lawyers who are ready and able to collaborate with you to find positive solutions to your legal concerns, you should contact us.

(818) 707-1480

Permanent Disability Stipulations: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

September 7, 2022 //  by Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian//  Leave a Comment

Oftentimes a primary treating physician (PTP) and a qualified medical examiner (QME) disagree over the extent of Permanent Disability. One physician may identify permanent impairment at 40%, while the other rates it at 60%. When PD falls within a range, parties will often split the difference to achieve settlement. In our 40%-60% example, a split at 50% PD would most likely occur. The next step in the process is to explain to a Workers’ Compensation Judge how the parties arrived at the agreed rating to enable an award to be issued. We suggest the following language be used as a guide when stipulating to PD under this scenario:

“A dispute exists as to the extent of PD as identified in the (xx/xx/xxxx) report of PTP Dr. Jones and the (xx/xx/xxxx) report of QME Dr. Smith. Dr. Jones’ report rates out at 40% while Dr. Smith’s rates at 60%. Therefore, the parties hereby stipulate that where PD falls within the range of 40% through 60%, the rating shall be 50%.”

The above recommended language allows the parties to easily explain to the judge how PD was arrived at, but more importantly, it will have a major impact should either party later attempt to petition to reopen the case.

In our example, if new and further disability is later sought, normally the applicant would be required to prove the existence of a PD greater than the awarded 50% rating. However, because of the stipulation language used, the applicant must prove a PD greater than 60% to successfully reopen. Again, look at the language. It says: “The parties hereby stipulate that where PD falls within the range of 40% through 60%, the rating shall be 50%.”

This stipulation works both ways. Should the employer file a Petition to Reduce PD, the employer must prove PD below 40% for the same reasons mentioned above. When PD is based on a range, reopening requires the new level of PD to be beyond or below that range.

As a last recourse when dealing with a difficult applicant attorney who disagrees with the premise that new and further PD must exceed the range instead of the awarded PD, we suggest filing a “Petition to Enforce Stipulations.” By using the language recommended above, the parties will have entered a binding stipulation addressing how PD is to be determined, which could not have been clearer.

Category: Legal, Seminar, Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers' Compensation Claims Handling, Workers' Compensation

You May Also Be Interested In:

True Claim Stories: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

In Memory of Paul Lee, Esq.

First Aid: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Commutations: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Surveillance: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Workers’ Compensation Nurses: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

LC 5710 Attorney Fees: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Petition for Contribution: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

The 24-Visit Cap: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling

Previous Post: « When Not to Serve a Claim Form: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling
Next Post: WCAB Venue: A Sixty-Second Seminar in Workers’ Compensation Claims Handling »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Footer

Practice Areas

  • Business Litigation
  • Employment and Labor Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Workers’ Compensation Claims Defense

Our Offices

Los Angeles
Orange County
Bay Area
Sacramento
Fresno
Contact Us Today →

Contact Us

Contact our legal office today. Our attorneys are ready to fight for you. There is no better time than now.
Contact Us Today →

  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • LinkedIn

Newsletter

Sign up to get free resources, tips, and directory of our firm.

  • Legal Blog
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Serving the Community

Site Footer

This website may be used for informational purposes only. The information contained in this Website is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No one should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information in this website without seeking the appropriate legal and professional counsel on his or her particular circumstances. The operation of this website and the transmission of information via this website are not intended to and do not create a confidential or attorney-client relationship. Any communications with The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, via Internet e-mail or through this website contain the security limits inherent to standard e-mail and should not be considered secure or confidential. While The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, hopes that the information contained in this website are useful as general information or background material, and while the contents of the Website are updated regularly, it cannot offer a warranty that the information is current, accurate, or applicable to any given situation. ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE DISCLAIMED. By the information within this website, The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, does not hold itself out as qualified to practice law in any state, territory, or country other than those in which its attorneys are actually qualified. Additionally, The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based on viewing this website in a state, territory, or country in which this website does not comply with the applicable laws and ethical rules of that state. Links – This website may contain links to third-party websites. These third-party websites are not under the control of The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, and The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian, is in no way responsible for the contents of any linked websites or any links contained in such websites. Links to third-party websites are provided for convenience only and do not imply endorsement of the linked website by The Law Firm of Friedman + Bartoumian.

Copyright © 2023 · Website Design By Ali Lapidus · Log in