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. ADJ3568698 (MON 0246436)
Regular
Nov 15, 2016

ROGER SCHENDEL vs. B&B SALES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought renewed prescriptions for Norco and Omeprazole. Defendant contested the award of these medications, arguing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction due to a timely Utilization Review (UR) denial upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's award based on a stipulation agreement that waived the UR/IMR process in favor of an Agreed Medical Examiner (AME). The majority found defendant bound by the stipulation to abide by the AME's report, which deemed the prescriptions medically appropriate. A dissenting opinion argued the AME's report was insufficient for an award as it was not based on a current examination or complete review of the applicant's medical records.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersStipulations with Requests for AwardsNorcoOmeprazoleSynvisc injectionsRequest for Authorization (RFA)Utilization Review (UR) denialIndependent Medical Review (IMR)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. ADJ3700908 (SRO 0101979) ADJ3874442 (SRO 0098853)
Regular
Jul 18, 2014

Randall Otten vs. Cardinal Newman High School, California Insurance Guarantee Association for Superior National Insurance Company, in liquidation

This case concerns the validity of a Utilization Review (UR) determination regarding the applicant's need for a radiofrequency rhizotomy injection for his low back injury. The Appeals Board reversed the lower judge's decision, finding the UR determination valid. They held that the omission of certain medical reports was not a material procedural defect because they would not have changed the UR physician's conclusion. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant failed to present substantial medical evidence to support the necessity of the treatment or prove the UR was invalid. The issue of medical necessity is now subject to Independent Medical Review (IMR).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewReconsiderationFindings and AwardMaterial Procedural DefectDubonEvidence-Based GuidelinesAgreed Medical EvaluatorTreating Physician
References
6
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. ADJ9070770
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

OSCAR GARCIA-PICEN vs. TIGHT QUARTERS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling ordering viscosupplementation injections for an applicant's knee injury. The WCAB found the prior ruling, which deemed the defendant's utilization review (UR) denial defective due to a missing signature, to be based on an incorrect premise as the UR physician did sign the report. However, the WCAB noted the UR physician may not have been aware of the applicant's second surgery, potentially rendering the UR defective for other reasons. The case was returned to the trial level for further consideration, with a dissenting opinion arguing the UR was demonstrably defective for omitting key medical history and the treatment should have been affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOscar Garcia-PicenTight QuartersInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ9070770Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationViscosupplementation injectionsUtilization Review (UR) denialDefective UR
References
4
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. ADJ4564735 (SFO 0469452)
Regular
Aug 17, 2016

GEORGE FLEET vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Northwest Airlines' Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that the utilization review (UR) denial for bilateral knee surgery was untimely. The Board adopted the Judge's report, which found that the initial Request for Authorization (RFA) was faxed on July 23, 2015, making the subsequent UR denial invalid. Because the UR denial was untimely, jurisdiction returned to the Board to determine the medical necessity of the treatment, which was found to be warranted based on substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Dubon IIRequest for Authorizationbilateral knee arthroscopic surgerymedical necessityuntimely denialFax Confirmationsubstantial medical evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ339088 (SDO 0304788)
Regular
Aug 30, 2016

Gregory Parrent vs. SBC-PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

This case clarifies the utilization review (UR) and independent medical review (IMR) process for medical treatment recommendations within a Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Appeals Board affirmed that even when a physician is part of the defendant's MPN, their treatment recommendations are subject to UR by the employer if disputed. If UR denies or modifies the recommendation, the dispute must then proceed to IMR, not the Appeals Board. The applicant's contention that MPN physicians' recommendations are exempt from UR was rejected, emphasizing a uniform standard of care and review for all medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSBC-Pacific Bell Telephone CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Independent Medical Review (IMR)Utilization Review (UR)Labor Code section 4600primary treating physicianRequest for Authorization (RFA)
References
5
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 8,464 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