Home/Case Law/KATHLEEN O'NEAL vs. HALE ALOHA/MARK ONE CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND
Regular DecisionReconsideration

KATHLEEN O'NEAL vs. HALE ALOHA/MARK ONE CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND

Filed: Feb 12, 2015
Stockton
ADJ7685567

CompFox AI Summary

This case involves a dispute over authorization for cervical surgery for applicant Kathleen O'Neal. The defendant argued that Dr. McCormack, who recommended the surgery, was a one-time consultant, not a treating physician, and thus his request for authorization was not subject to utilization review (UR). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the judge's order, finding Dr. McCormack acted as a treating physician by undertaking to obtain authorization and proceed with the surgery. Therefore, the defendant's failure to submit Dr. McCormack's request for authorization to UR in a timely manner meant the UR denial was invalid. The WCAB concluded the defendant was obligated to provide the surgery as it was supported by substantial medical evidence and reasonably necessary.

KATHLEEN O'NEAL vs. HALE ALOHA/MARK ONE CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND is a workers' compensation case decided in Stockton. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.

It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Stockton.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

This case involves a dispute over authorization for cervical surgery for applicant Kathleen O'Neal. The defendant argued that Dr. McCormack, who recommended the surgery, was a one-time consultant, not a treating physician, and thus his request for authorization was not subject to utilization review (UR). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the judge's order, finding Dr. McCormack acted as a treating physician by undertaking to obtain authorization and proceed with the surgery. Therefore, the defendant's failure to submit Dr. McCormack's request for authorization to UR in a timely manner meant the UR denial was invalid. The WCAB concluded the defendant was obligated to provide the surgery as it was supported by substantial medical evidence and reasonably necessary.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

KATHLEEN O'NEAL vs. HALE ALOHA/MARK ONE CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND workers compensation case in Stockton. Legal case summary, ruling, and analysis for attorneys and legal research.

KATHLEEN O'NEAL vs. HALE ALOHA/MARK ONE CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND case law summary from Stockton. Workers compensation legal decision, case analysis, and court ruling details.

KATHLEEN O'NEAL vs. HALE ALOHA/MARK ONE CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND Case Analysis

KATHLEEN O'NEAL vs. HALE ALOHA/MARK ONE CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND is a legal case related to workers' compensation in Stockton. This case explains important rulings, legal interpretations, and claim decisions.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.