What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order, denying the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the WCJ on November 30, 2021, which was reviewed and affirmed by the Appeals Board after reconsideration.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 14, 2021.
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 Appeals Board found that the diagnostic testing requested by Dr. Nudleman was not medical treatment subject to UR or IMR, and therefore the Board has jurisdiction over the matter and can affirm the WCJ's decision.
From the decision · page 4Having reviewed Dr. Nudleman's report, it appears to be more analogous to a medical- legal evaluation report than a medical treatment report. Defendant makes various arguments based on its assertion that Dr. Nudleman is a "treating physician." There is no evidence in the record indicating that Dr. Nudleman was at any time designated to be a treating physician, and as noted by the WCJ, the diagnostics requested by Dr. Nudleman "do not represent medical treatment." (Opinion on Decision, November 23, 2021, p. 4; Report, p. 5.) We agree with the WCJ that Dr. Nudleman was not providing services reasonably necessary to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of his industrial injury, and in turn, he was not providing medical treatment. (Lab. Code, § 4600.) Thus, his request for authorization is not subject to UR or IMR determinations. The Appeals Board has jurisdiction over this matter, and we see no legal or factual basis for disturbing the WCJ's decision.