PTCS: Not Just Paperwork

In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Applicant filed a claim, which was later denied by the claims administrator. The Applicant then sought adjudication before the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board. As is typical in such cases, Applicant was evaluated by a QME in orthopedics, Dr. Hanley. Dr. Hanley prepared two reports in his capacity as the QME. Dr. Hanley was subsequently replaced and Applicant was evaluated by QME Dr. McGahan, who issued his own reports.

When the case was set for trial, the parties executed a Pretrial Conference Statement (PTCS) pursuant to standard procedure. In this PTCS, the parties expressly stipulated that Dr. McGhan would serve as the QME and as a result Dr. McGhan’s reports were the only QME reports included in the exhibit list. Yet, the trial judge cited Dr. Hanley’s reports, despite their exclusion from the evidentiary record, as part of her rationale for finding an industrial injury. On reconsideration, the Court of Appeals held that the WCAB erred by admitting the Dr. Hanley’s reports at trial despite the fact they were not listed on the Exhibit list attached to the PTCS as required by statute. The statute states that if a potential exhibit is not listed on the PTCS, it shall not be allowed in to evidence. The WCAB allowed the reports in to evidence citing that the failure to include them on the Exhibit list was harmless error. They further emphasized that the judge did not rely on Dr. Hanley’s reports to reach her finding and that the trial Judge had the discretion to determine if evidence should be admitted into the record as a matter of due process. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision and found the opposite. They held that LC section 5502 is not discretionary, and the matter was returned to the WCAB for decision without using the reporting of Dr. Hanley in any decision.

The holding confirms two principles. First, statutes mean what they say and the WCAB may not ignore them to achieve a result they desire. While judicial discretion is undeniably important, it should not come at the expense of procedural integrity and following the required statutes.

Next, stipulations are not ceremonial, they are a binding agreement that defines the scope of the evidentiary record. If both parties sign off on a specific QME acting as the controlling medical legal evidence in a dispute, then that should be the end of the matter. It is entirely reasonable for parties to expect that only the agreed-upon evidence will be weighed in the court’s decision-making process. Saying the outcome wasn’t affected after stepping outside the lines of the PTCS and ignoring the statutory mandates of LC section 5502 is not appropriate. Failure to follow statutes has the effect of promoting litigation and just leaves all stakeholders wondering why statutes exist in the first place.

The judge’s inclusion of Dr. Hanley’s reports in her decision suggests they held some weight in her decision, even if it were not the sole reasoning. Otherwise, why cite them at all? If the reports played no role in the outcome, they should not have been allowed into evidence and further should not have been referenced in the WCAB opinion.

If the stipulations between the parties and the exhibits listed in the PTCS become little more than suggestions of what might be introduced at trial, it undermines the very principles of due process that judicial discretion is intended to safeguard. Judges may have discretion, but that discretion must exist within a framework of the written Labor Code statutes which govern and the WCAB must respect the procedural rules all stakeholders rely upon.

This article was written by Caroline Hammer, Esq., Associate Attorney at Bober, Peterson & Koby, LLP. To download a copy of the decision publication, please click here.