Stockwell And David Bautista, Former Stockwell Lien Specialist And Hearing Rep, Come To A Settlement Agreement
By Lonce LaMon - November 4, 2011
On Wednesday, October 26th, David Bautista, a former hearing representative and lien specialist from California-wide workers’ compensation defense firm Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton and Muehl, entered into a settlement agreement with the Petitioners, represented by Stockwell, who filed a Petition with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on May 11, 2011. The Petition sought to bar Bautista from acting as a representative adverse to any cases involving his former clients.
David Bautista worked for Stockwell’s office from 1997 to February of 2011, at which time he switched sides and began working independently representing medical providers seeking payments for their liens through the WCAB. Some of these providers were the very opponents he had worked to defend his Stockwell clients against in the face of these medical providers’ demands for payments on their liens.
The Petition, which was filed on behalf of five petitioners—First Comp, Sedgwick CMS, Zurich American, Preferred Employers, and the California Insurance Guarantee Association, sought to banish Bautista from acting adverse to any cases involving the members of this petitioner group forever. Stockwell, in the Petition, cited primarily confidentiality as the reason for demanding David recuse himself from acting adverse to any and all cases involving all the petitioners from this day on and perpetually into the future.
Steve Appell, a hearing representative from the firm Appell and Associates, represented David in the negotiations for settlement. Appell spoke to this writer about the settlement, which has been sealed and is confidential.
Lonce LaMon: Why is the settlement agreement confidential?
Steve Appell: It’s what the parties wanted. The original Petition sought to prevent him from appearing adverse to former clients up to infinity. There was no time line on the Petition. So, arguably he could be prevented from appearing adverse forever. That, of course, would be the worst case scenario in our mind. The best case scenario would be that he would not be prohibited from appearing adverse at all. Somewhere in between is probably a reasonable settlement.
Lonce LaMon: Okay.
Steve Appell: Let me say this. There’s a rule with the Board. That is that a brand new judge cannot preside over a case where the judge’s former law firm appears for two years. I have said that it would be totally unreasonable to hold a non-attorney, i.e. David, to a higher standard than a judge. In other words, if a judge is going to be barred from hearing a case for two years, I can’t imagine that it would be reasonable to prevent David from appearing on any case for more than two years. Except for cases that were directly in his inventory. The original 64 cases (his inventory) he agreed to not appear on forever.
Lonce LaMon: Yes.
Steve Appell: So, they sought to arguably prevent him forever (from appearing) to any of those five petitioners. (But) judges are barred for two years. And I said from the get-go, that it would be totally unreasonable to hold a non-attorney to a higher standard to a judge.
Lonce LaMon: Okay. Got it. So, he’s not barred for more than two years.
Steve Appell: Well, I can’t really confirm or deny what’s in the agreement. But I think David’s very happy with the settlement. David’s glad it’s all over.
Todd Mobley, the attorney representing the Petitioner from Stockwell’s office, spoke to this writer finally about the case. During the negotiation stage, he said he was not at liberty to discuss anything as it is the policy of the Stockwell office not to ever comment on pending litigation.
Lonce LaMon: So, Todd, why was the settlement made confidential? Why is it closed?
Todd Mobley: Because the settlement documents contain sensitive and proprietary information—about clients and matters of that nature. So, we thought it best to keep that confidential.
Lonce LaMon: How do you feel this will impact attorneys or hearing reps who want to change side in the future?
Todd Mobley: I think that’s going to have to be on a case by case scenario—depending on the type of representation and the nature of representation, and the type of the information that’s exchanged between the parties. So, I don’t think any one strategy will really play out.
Lonce LaMon: Okay. You can’t make a general blanket statement about it?
Todd Mobley: No. Not in these kinds of matters because it is so fact specific. Really, because of the type of representation and the retention and the matters that are pending.
Lonce LaMon: How do you feel about the settlement? Was it a good thing? A bad thing?
Todd Mobley: I think it was an equitable settlement. I think it enables the parties to continue with their respective representations without transgressing any of the ethical and moral and legal obligations that are inherent in representing somebody in an administrative form. I think his (David’s) representation did a great job, and I think the parties reached an equitable settlement.
David Bautista himself expressed his approbation with the settlement and that the whole process was a learning experience. He said that Stockwell’s office had been a wonderful place to work, and that he is grateful to the law firm for the excellent experience they gave him along with putting him through law school.
Lonce LaMon: Were you worried about your future career?
David Bautista: Oh, absolutely. I am ecstatic now because I can move forward. Stockwell’s office—I have nothing bad to say about them. I’ll always be grateful. The way I did it (when leaving) may have not been the best way to do things. Now I’m extremely happy and I know which way to go.
Lonce LaMon: Do you have anxiety about the settlement?
David Bautista: No. There’s no anxiety. I know my responsibilities.
Lonce LaMon: So, you wanted to make a life change.
David Bautista: Yes, it was a career change. When a decision had to be made, I made it. Stockwell’s was a wonderful place to work. And circumstances change. The whole industry was under pressure. My job was not easy. And I always had to be on the front of the issues.
Lonce LaMon: So, your marriage ended and your employment with Stockwell ended all at the same time. So, it was two losses at once. A double whammy, right?
David Bautista: Right.
Lonce LaMon: So, are you shacked up with anyone else yet?
David Bautista: No comment on that one. (laughs)
Lonce LaMon: So, your feeling about Stockwell is there’s no animosity.
David Bautista: No, there’s not.
Lonce LaMon: It sounds like you have a mature attitude about it.
David Bautista: It was a learning experience. When you have such a long term employment, it’s kind of hard.
| 
__May11th2017.gif)
.gif)