CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ2172104 (SAC 0326562)
Regular
Jan 15, 2015

THOMAS MEEKER vs. OREGON PACIFIC BUILDING PRODUCTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the validity of a utilization review (UR) denial for an applicant's requested prescription medication. Initially, the administrative law judge found the UR denial invalid because the reviewing physician did not examine all relevant medical reports. However, following the en banc decision in *Dubon II*, the Appeals Board reversed this finding. The Board ruled that under *Dubon II*, only untimely UR decisions are invalid; other defects, like incomplete medical review, must be addressed through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process. Therefore, the UR denial was deemed valid as it was timely.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationProvigilDubon IIIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
14
Case No. ADJ6939280
Regular
Nov 08, 2018

ROBIN GONZALEZ vs. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SANTA BARBARA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns applicant Robin Gonzalez's claim for ongoing home health care services following a spinal injury. The employer's insurer denied these services via a timely Utilization Review (UR) based on the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to review the UR denial because the process was timely and the dispute over medical necessity must be resolved through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process, as established in Dubon II. Applicant's treating physician can submit a new request if medically necessary, as the prior UR denial is effective for 12 months.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleJurisdictionHome Health CarePermanent DisabilityPetition to ReopenFailed Back SyndromeDubon II
References
6
Case No. ADJ9893989
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

DAMIAN SANCHEZ vs. MICHAEL SIMMS dba SIMMS PAINTING AND DECORATING, TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the timeliness of a utilization review (UR) determination regarding a request for home health care. The defendant argued its UR denial was timely because it requested additional information, thereby extending the review period under Labor Code section 4610(g)(1). The WCJ initially found the UR determination untimely for prospective and concurrent review, but timely for retrospective review, citing a narrow interpretation of who can request further information. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and found the UR denial timely. The Board held that the defendant's attorney, acting as an agent for the claims administrator, could validly request additional information, extending the UR deadline to 14 days.

Utilization ReviewRequest For AuthorizationIndependent Medical ReviewProspective ReviewConcurrent ReviewRetrospective ReviewTimelinessLabor Code Section 4610Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.1Findings Of Fact And Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ9917212
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

MICHAEL GREEN vs. ELLE PLACEMENT dba GOLDEN GATE STAFFING, LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE

This case concerns the timeliness of a defendant's utilization review (UR) denial for requested medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the initial decision awarding treatment, finding the defendant's UR denial was timely made and served within the five-business-day window. The key issue was whether a UR denial sent via facsimile after 5:30 p.m. on the fifth business day was valid. The Board concluded the UR decision was timely made and communicated within 24 hours of its making, rendering it valid and requiring disputes to go through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationIndependent Medical ReviewWCJBusiness DayFacsimile Date StampAdministrative DirectorMedical TreatmentSpinal SurgeryArthroplasty
References
4
Case No. ADJ 1390531 (LBO 0388008)
Regular
Apr 11, 2018

SARITA JANE BISSETT-GARCIA vs. PEACE AND JOY CENTER, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior finding that the defendant's utilization review (UR) process was untimely. The WCAB found that the UR denial for home care assistance was issued within the statutory five business days, despite an alleged deficiency in the initial denial letter. Consequently, the WCAB determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the medical necessity of the requested treatment, as only timely UR decisions are subject to WCAB review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardutilization reviewadministrative law judgereconsiderationcompromise and release agreementmedical treatmentLabor Code section 4610Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.1primary treating physicianindependent medical review
References
2
Case No. ADJ2426407 (VEN 0086297)
Regular
Sep 12, 2014

ROCHELLE STOCK vs. CAMARILLO STATE HOSPITAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant challenged the admissibility of a Utilization Review (UR) denial for a hospital bed, arguing that UR is not applicable to requests from an MPN physician. The WCJ admitted the UR denial, finding the applicant's objection lacked merit and that the UR process is mandatory for all treatment requests, even those from MPN physicians. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's reconsideration petition as premature. However, treating it as a removal petition, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, clarifying that MPN participation does not preclude UR review for treatment authorization.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewMedical Provider NetworkPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings and AwardIndependent Medical ReviewPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical Treatment AuthorizationLabor Code Section 4610
References
1
Case No. ADJ8799162
Regular
Jun 07, 2016

Sean Mulford vs. City of Los Angeles

This case involved a dispute over the timeliness of utilization review (UR) denials for the applicant's requested medical treatment. The original judge found the denials untimely due to issues with proof of service and communication timelines. However, on reconsideration, the Appeals Board found that the City of Los Angeles had provided sufficient evidence of timely fax transmissions for both UR denials. Therefore, the Board rescinded the original decision and substituted new findings that both UR denials were timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewTimelinessMedical TreatmentFindings and AwardReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgePublic Entity EmployerIndustrial InjuryPhysical Therapy
References
1
Case No. ADJ3854591 (VNO 0264467)
Regular
Jan 07, 2020

ANDRZEJ WASOWICZ vs. J.L. FISHER, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the timeliness of a Utilization Review (UR) denial for requested medical treatment. The applicant argued the UR denial was untimely because it was issued on the 15th calendar day, exceeding the 14-day statutory limit under Labor Code section 4610(i)(1). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior decision that found the UR timely. The Board determined the UR denial was indeed untimely and remanded the case for a new decision on the medical necessity of the treatment.

Utilization ReviewRequest for Authorizationtimelinesscalendar daysworking daysjurisdictionmedical necessityLabor CodeFindings of FactPetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ693974 (OAK 0242212)
Regular
Apr 26, 2019

Glory Shreeve vs. Village Shops/ Ethan Allen Carriage House, Superior National Insurance Company, BROADSPIRE, California Insurance Guarantee Association

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, applicant Glory Shreeve sought authorization for medical treatment, which was denied by the defendant's Utilization Review (UR) provider. Applicant argued the UR denials were untimely because requests for additional information were not made by a licensed physician, thus invalidating the delays and granting the Board jurisdiction over medical necessity. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, finding that the UR provider's requests for additional information did not violate Labor Code Section 4610(e) and that the denials were issued within the extended timeframes permitted by DWC Rule 9792.9.1. Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the requested medical treatment due to the timely UR denials.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationLabor Code section 4610(e)DWC Rule 9792.9.1TimelinessJurisdictionMedical NecessityCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
2
Case No. ADJ4261717 (FRE 0227914), ADJ2564944 (FRE 0224116)
Regular
Jan 19, 2017

Ann Swengel vs. CAMBRIDGE; AON CORPORATION, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, reversing the prior order that mandated a gym membership. The Board found that because the defendant timely submitted the request for authorization (RFA) to Utilization Review (UR), the UR's denial is not subject to review by the Board, nor is it subject to Independent Medical Review (IMR) if not timely appealed. Consequently, the applicant's petition for reconsideration and for penalties was denied. The Board emphasized that their jurisdiction regarding UR determinations is limited to timeliness.

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderPrimary Treating PhysicianRequest for AuthorizationAdministrative Director's DeterminationMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleLabor Code Section 5814.5Stipulations with Request for Award
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,819 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational