California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 (Cal. App. 1996):
In Crawford v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, the court considered a matter in which a psychiatric expert witness was charged with contempt for [42 Cal.App.4th 1280] failure to disclose the names of all persons who assisted in preparing medical reports he submitted in workers' compensation cases, in violation of California Code of Regulations, title 8, chapter 4.5, section 10606 (Rule 10606). (Id. at pp. 160-163, 259 Cal.Rptr. 414.) In considering the purpose of Rule 10606, the court relied on the reasoning in In re Nussdorf (1981) 46 Cal.Comp.Cases 189, 192, footnote 3 (in bank) which stated: " 'Knowledge of the identity of the person performing a physical examination of a workers' compensation claimant is extremely important to both the finder of fact and the parties in a workers' compensation setting. The person who performs the physical examination makes crucial judgments as to the validity of a claimant's complaints and symptoms. The finder of fact and the parties are entitled to know that person's identity so that they may weigh his or her qualifications and reputation, and may have the opportunity for cross-examination. If a workers' compensation judge or the [WCAB] receives a report signed by a physician which does not otherwise disclose that the physician's opinions stated in that report are based in part upon the findings of a physical examination not performed by the reporting physician, then the judge or the [WCAB] would reasonably conclude that the signing physician had performed the physical examination, and would therefore be misled about a crucial issue.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 168, 259 Cal.Rptr. 414.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.