What the panel ordered
The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant could select a new treating physician and was entitled to the recommended further medical treatment.
The Board granted reconsideration of the Findings and Award of October 5, 2000, which found applicant properly selected a new treating physician and was entitled to further medical treatment.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The Board concluded that where there is an existing award of medical treatment, the injured worker is entitled to reasonable changes of treating physicians without following sections 4061 and 4062 procedures, and the treatment by the new physician was reasonable and necessary.
From the decision · page 26 Based on our review of the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude that where there
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
There was an existing award for continuing medical treatment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This meant there was no dispute over the need for continuing treatment, so the applicant could select a new treating physician without following sections 4061 and 4062 procedures.
From the decision · page 33 sustained industrial injury to his back and that "there is need for medical treatment to cure or
No evidence was presented that the medical treatment provided by Dr. Bernfeld was unreasonable or unnecessary.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the conclusion that the treatment by the new treating physician was reasonable and necessary.
From the decision · page 61 specifically noted there was no evidence presented that the medical treatment provided was
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Recommended conservative care and an exercise regime; treatment was reasonable and necessary.
The Board and WCJ found the treatment plan and care by Dr. Bernfeld reasonable and necessary.
From the decision · page 2201 On June 27, 2000, applicant sought treatment from Dr. Bemfeld, of Central City
Declared applicant permanent and stationary and released from care.
The Rushing case and Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062 apply only when the original treating physician has discharged the employee from care and there is a dispute about continuing treatment, which was not the case here.
From the decision · page 2131 conveyer worker on August 18, 1998. On June 14, 2000, Dr. Nassiri, applicant's treating
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 9785(b); Labor Code sections 4061, 4062, 4600; Rushing (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1041; Ralph's Grocery Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lara) (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 820
Where there is an existing award of medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of an industrial injury, an injured worker is not required to follow the procedures set forth in Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062 before selecting a new primary treating physician.
The Board applied this standard to conclude the applicant was entitled to select a new treating physician without following sections 4061 and 4062 procedures because there was an existing award for continuing medical treatment.
From the decision · page 26 Based on our review of the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude that where there
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The parties stipulated that there is need for medical treatment and an award was issued providing for continuing medical treatment.
From the decision · page 33 sustained industrial injury to his back and that "there is need for medical treatment to cure or
No evidence was presented that the medical treatment provided by Dr. Bernfeld was unreasonable or unnecessary.
From the decision · page 61 specifically noted there was no evidence presented that the medical treatment provided was
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.