Tag: 2018 News

Janelle Bogue claimed an injury to her back, neck, shoulders, chest, knee and right ankle while employed as an accounting tech for the County of Solano.

On November 3, 2017, the Medical Unit issued a QME Panel in response to defendant’s request.. Dr. D’Amico was the last remaining physician after both parties’ respective strikes. Applicant avers that her attorney called Dr. D’Amico’s office on November 20, 2017, and as the doctor was scheduling beyond 60 days, directed his assistant to request a replacement panel.

On December 13, 2017, defendant sent a letter to applicant advising her that she was scheduled to be evaluated by Dr. D’Amico on February 12, 2018.

Applicant and defendant both sent letters to the PQME describing the issues to be addressed at the evaluation. Applicant attended the February 12, 2018 PQME evaluation as scheduled.

On February 13, 2018, applicant sent a letter to Dr. D’Amico asking him not to issue a report as there was a dispute as to whether he was the correct PQME.

On March 2, 2018, defendant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to an expedited hearing on the issue of applicant’s allegation that Dr. D’Amico should not serve as the PQME. On March 15, 2018, applicant objected to the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed alleging that she had requested a replacement QME panel.

At the expedited hearing, applicant contended that a replacement panel is appropriate as she requested one on December 18, 2017; applicant acknowledges that neither defendant nor the Medical Unit apparently received the request.

Defendant contended that Labor Code § 4062.2 authorized it to schedule the PQME and that Rule 31.3(e) allows the party with the right to schedule a PQME appointment to waive the requirement that a PQME be scheduled in 60 days.

On April 17, 2018, the WCJ issued the Findings wherein he determined that Dr. D’ Amico was duly selected to serve as the PQME and that nothing in the record supports a determination that he should not continue to do so.

Applicant filed a Petition for Removal, which was denied in the panel decision of Janelle Bogue v County of Solano.

Applicant had the initial right to arrange an appointment for an evaluation with the PQME per section 4062.2(d). As she failed to inform defendant that she could not obtain an appointment within 10 days of Dr. D’ Amico’s selection, under the circumstances here, the right to schedule the appointment switched to defendant.

The WCJ thus correctly concluded that he should remain as the PQME.

Coca-Cola Co. said it’s eyeing the cannabis drinks market, becoming the latest beverage company to tap into surging demand for marijuana products. Coke’s possible foray into the marijuana sector comes as beverage makers are trying to add cannabis as a trendy ingredient while their traditional businesses slow.

According to a report from BNN Bloomberg Television, the company says it’s monitoring the nascent industry and is interested in drinks infused with CBD — the non-psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that treats pain but doesn’t get you high. The Atlanta-based soft drinks maker is in talks with Canadian marijuana producer Aurora Cannabis to develop the beverages.

“We are closely watching the growth of non-psychoactive CBD as an ingredient in functional wellness beverages around the world,” Coca-Cola spokesman Kent Landers said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg News. “The space is evolving quickly. No decisions have been made at this time.” Landers declined to comment on Aurora.

Coca-Cola has already been diversifying as consumption of soda continues to decline. The company, with its iconic brands ranging from Coke and Sprite to Powerade, announced it will acquire the Costa Coffee chain for $5.1 billion in August, and has expanded into other products including juice, tea and mineral water over the past decade.

Last month, Corona beer brewer Constellation Brands Inc. announced it will spend $3.8 billion to increase its stake in Canopy Growth Corp., the Canadian marijuana producer with a value that exceeds $10 billion.

Molson Coors Brewing Co. is starting a joint venture with Quebec’s Hexo’s Corp., formerly known as Hydropothecary Corp., to develop cannabis drinks in Canada. Diageo PLC, maker of Guinness beer, is holding discussions with at least three Canadian cannabis producers about a possible deal, BNN Bloomberg reported last month. Heineken NV’s Lagunitas craft-brewing label has launched a brand specializing in non-alcoholic drinks infused with THC, marijuana’s active ingredient.

The discussions with Aurora are focused on CBD-infused drinks to ease inflammation, pain and cramping, according to the BNN Bloomberg report. CBD, or cannabidiol, is the chemical in the pot plant often used for medicinal purposes, and doesn’t produce the high that comes from THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol. There are no guarantees of any deal between Aurora and Coca-Cola, according to the report. Aurora Comment

Heather MacGregor, a spokeswoman for Aurora, said in an emailed statement that the cannabis producer has expressed specific interest in the infused-beverage space, and intends to enter that market, BNN Bloomberg’s David George-Cosh reported.

While marijuana remains illegal at the national level in the U.S., there is growing acceptance of the use of CBD derived from marijuana to treat illnesses ranging from chronic pain to anxiety and epilepsy. The first-ever medical treatment derived from a marijuana plant will hit the U.S. market soon, after regulators in June gave an epilepsy treatment by GW Pharmaceuticals Plc the green light.

So far, the California workers’ compensation system has not been required to pay for “medical marijuana” as treatment for industrial injuries. But, in 2014, New Mexico became the first state to have a state appellate court order a workers’ compensation insurance carrier to provide reimbursement to an injured worker for medical marijuana

The Appellate Division of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed two different administrative law judge awards reimbursing workers for their medical marijuana expenses, Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co. and Noll v. Lepage Bakeries.

And later, an ALJ in New Jersey issued an order in Watson v. 84 Lumber requiring reimbursement of an injured worker for medical marijuana payment

And now, Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) introduced legislation this week to allow doctors at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to prescribe medical marijuana to veterans in the 31 states that have established medical marijuana programs.

This Act is to be cited as the “Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act.”

The Act proclaims that “chronic pain affects the veteran population, with almost 60 percent of veterans returning from serving in the Armed Forces in the Middle East, and more than 50 percent of older veterans, who are using the health care system of the Department of Veterans Affairs living with some form of chronic pain.”

“And it says “in 2011, veterans were twice as likely to die from accidental opioid overdoses as nonveterans. States with medical cannabis laws have a 24.8 percent lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate compared with States without medical cannabis laws.”

The proposed law would “allow veterans to use, possess, or transport medical marijuana and to discuss the use of medical marijuana with a physician of the Department of Veterans Affairs as authorized by State law, and for other purposes.”

In addition to creating a temporary, five-year safe harbor protection for veterans who use medical marijuana, the bill would also direct the VA to research how medical marijuana could help veterans better manage chronic pain and reduce opioid abuse.

“In the 31 states where medical marijuana is legal, patients and doctors are able to see if marijuana helps with pain management. Our veterans deserve to have that same chance,” Senator Schatz said. “This bill does right by our veterans, and it can also shed light on how medical marijuana can help with the nation’s opioid epidemic.”

The bill is supported by the American Academy of Pain Medicine, Veterans Cannabis Project, Veterans for Medical Cannabis Access, Americans for Safe Access, NORML, Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance, Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, Veterans Cannabis Coalition and National Cannabis Industry Association.

The bill however is in conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). The federal government classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, meaning it’s perceived to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. The classification puts marijuana in the same category as heroin and a more restrictive category than schedule 2 drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) reached a settlement in an employment discrimination case with the County of Los Angeles involving two complainants who were denied or delayed positions with the County due to the County’s over broad pre-employment medical examination requirements.

One of the complainants was denied a position with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for more than 4 years because it was revealed during her pre-employment medical exam that she had a thyroid condition, although she did not have any restrictions on her ability to perform the job.

The other complainant was denied a position with the County when he revealed during his pre-employment medical exam that he had a prior knee injury although he too did not have any work restrictions.

DFEH found cause to believe violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act had occurred and filed civil complaints in Los Angeles County Superior Court in April and June 2017 (case numbers BC663789 and BC658050).

In settling the case, the County of Los Angeles agreed to amend its civil service rules about pre-employment medical examinations and will overhaul its medical examination process to only consider medical information that is directly relevant to the job being applied for.

In addition, the County will provide regular disability discrimination training and has agreed to be subject to three years of monitoring by a neutral third party and DFEH to ensure compliance with the agreement.

The County will also pay a total of $560,000. Of that, $410,000 will be paid directly to a complainant and $150,000 to the DFEH for fees and costs. (The second complainant previously resolved the financial aspect of his case.)

“California employers are only permitted to seek medical information from applicants that is directly related to the job for which they are applying,” said DFEH Director Kevin Kish. “Overbroad requests for medical information or denying an applicant a job because of future risk of injury is unlawful.”

Alexandra Seldin, Senior Staff Counsel, Olivia Tran, Senior Staff Counsel, and Paula Pearlman, Assistant Chief Counsel represented DFEH in this proceeding.

Over the past decade, American doctors failed to provide a written medical justification for nearly one-third of opioid prescriptions.

Researchers from RAND Corporation and Harvard Medical School published a study Tuesday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine showing 28.5 percent of the roughly 809 million doctor visits that resulted in a prescription for opioid painkillers between 2006 and 2015 lacked medical records showing a chronic pain condition or any symptoms of pain related to the patient, reports CNN.

Roughly 5.1 percent of opioid prescriptions were written for cancer patients suffering from breakthrough pain, while 66.4 percent were for patients with non-cancer related pain. Researchers note that while a lack of documented justification does not necessarily reveal “a nefarious purpose on the part of the doctor,” it might explain in part how Americans became so dependent on opioids.

“For these visits, it is unclear why a physician chose to prescribe an opioid or whether opioid therapy is justified,” said Dr. Tisamarie B. Sherry, a researcher for RAND Corporation and lead author of the study, according to CNN. “The reasons for this could be truly inappropriate prescribing of opioids or merely lax documentation. – If a doctor does not document a medical reason for prescribing an opioid, it could mean that the prescription is not clinically appropriate.”

A study published Aug. 1 in medical journal The BMJ reveals that between 2007 and 2016, the percentage of commercially insured patients prescribed opioids held steady at 14 percent.

The study, lead by Molly Moore Jeffery of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, investigated the individual patient data of 48 million people with health insurance, both commercial and through Medicare. The prescription data was then converted into milligram morphine equivalents (MME). They found the average MME dosage across all patients reviewed in the study was higher in 2016 than in 2007, a level Jeffery said is a “point where you see a greater risk of overdose.”

The researchers advocate for a general shift within the medical community away from opioids, however, Jeffery does not advocate legislative solutions that end up impacting patient access to crucial medication.

Data released by officials with the CDC on July 11 shows the majority of opioid-linked deaths are the result of synthetic opioids like fentanyl. The report shows synthetic opioids killed roughly 27,000 people across the U.S. over the 12-month period ending November 2017, up from roughly 19,413 lives in 2016 and 9,580 lives in 2015.