Objection to "Declaration of Rediness to Proceed?"

[popflier]

One Feb. 13th, 2012 my attorney filed a "Declaration of Rediness to Proceed" and requested a Mandatory Settlement Conference. Today I received a letter from the opposing council stating that they objected to the "Declaration of Rediness to Proceed" on the grounds that:

"Board assistance i not required in order to reach settlement. The defendants may need to cross-examine the Agreed Medical Examiner. The defendants request that the matter be set for a Status Conference if a hearing is inevitable."

My questions are:

1) Is there a judge or someone on the Board that will decide if they will accept/deny the objection or since the opposing council objected is that just it and there's no further discussion about it?

2) Why wouldn't the opposing council agree to this hearing if they do want to cross-examine the AME? I would think that asking the AME questions would need to have a representative from both parties present...hence a hearing?

3) Is this just another delay tactic by the insurance company?

4) It's been 6 years. Am I getting any closer to getting my case settled? Seriously frustrating!


Thanks for any info.

[1171]

rules for each state are different.
could yours be california?

if so:
1) yes, a judge will rule on the objection
2)court prefers testimony by way of written deposition.
3)depends on the issues; either party can appeal court decisions to many levels.