Program updates relating to your area of practice.
MCLE: 1 hour
In this program recorded May 16, 2018 our discussions covers:
Rebutting Medical Apportionment with a Vocational Expert
How a Judge Views Substantial Vocational Evidence
What makes a vocational report substantial evidence?
What factors make a vocational report not substantial evidence?
What does a vocational expert report have to include?
What does a vocational report have to exclude?
How do you deal (as a judge) with those “impermissible factors”?
Why should the expert address age and occupation as permissible factors?
How do you, as a judge, address the dichotomy between “impairment” evaluation and “disability” evaluation?
Why are “work restrictions” important for the judge and vocational expert to consider?
Why do some trial judges (and courts on recon) throw out vocational evidence as “not substantial evidence”? What can be done to correct the deficits in those reports and make those reports “substantial evidence”?
Since in fact the vocational expert’s audience is the judge, then how does the vocational expert need to tailor his or her presentation so that the judicial audience will be receptive to the vocational evidence?
Program materials included. Speakers: Jeffrey Swartz, Esq., Hon. Clint Feddersen, WCJ, Van Nuys, CA. Recorded May 16, 2018. MCLE credit: 1 hour
San Fernando Valley Bar Association (#451)
Pasadena Bar Association (#531)