The case of Saul Zuniga v. Interactive Trucking, Inc.; SCIF involves another challenge to the constitutionality of the IMR process, asserting that the anonymity of the IMR reviewers violates due process and the IMR statute violates the guarantee of right to appellate review.
After successfully appealing an IMR determination and obtaining an order remanding the matter back to IMR for review by a different physician reviewer, Zuniga filed a discovery motion seeking the disclosure of the IMR reviewers’ identities. While the discovery motion was pending, the second IMR decision was issued authorizing additional, but not all, of the prescribed medications. Thereafter, over defendant’s objections, a trial was set on the issue of the disclosure of the IMR physicians’ identities. The Workers’ Compensation Judge issued a decision finding that he could not release the names of the IMR physicians pursuant to Labor Code section 4610.6(f).
Zuniga filed a petition for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition for writ of review in October 2014 arguing that the anonymity of the IMR reviewers violates due process and that the IMR statutes violate the guaranteed right to appellate review. SCIF filed its answer arguing: (1) The petitioner lacks standing since he did not exhaust his administrative remedies by filing an appeal of the second determination and therefore the petition for review was premature; (2) the petition failed to name the DWC, which is an indispensable party; (3) the WCJ was correct in finding that he lacked the authority to order the disclosure of the reviewing doctors; and (4) not revealing the reviewers’ identities did not deprive the petitioner of his due process rights.
The briefing in this case was completed in December 2014 and the case remained idle for over a year.
In February 2016, the petition for writ of review was granted in case Saul Zuniga v. Interactive Trucking, Inc.; SCIF California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Div. 2, Case No. A143290. The Court issued the following order.
“Petitioner is directed on or before February 5, 2016 to serve a copy of his petition on the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, who has the option to file an informal opposition to the petition on or before February 23, 2016. The clerk of this court need not issue a formal writ in this proceeding. It appears to this court that the record provided by the parties is a complete record of the Board’s proceedings on the issues raised in the petition. Accordingly, unless a party or the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation serves and files an objection, in writing, within 20 days of the date of this order, the Board need not prepare a certified record in this matter. Absent further order of the court, no further briefing in this matter is contemplated. The justices will be familiar with the facts and issues, will have conferred among themselves, and will not require oral argument. If oral argument is requested, the request must be served and filed within 20 days of the date of this order. If no such request is received, the court will deem oral argument waived.”
This important case has not received much attention from the Workers’ Compensation community notwithstanding the significance of the outcome. Thus far the stakeholders have not appeared in this case as amicus.