What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant disputing findings that Dr. Michaels was Applicant's Primary Treating Physician and that the services were med-legal in nature
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.
Medical treatment / UR / IMRApplicant prevailedpsyche · nervous system
The WCJ found that Dr. Michaels was properly elected as Applicant's Primary Treating Physician and that his report was a valid med-legal report, rejecting defendant's arguments to the contrary based on case law and procedural facts.
From the decision · page 3Lien Claimant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, alleging that the undersigned was incorrect and that the charges were valid medical-legal services for which the defendant remains liable. After review of the Petition, the undersigned determined that the original Findings, Order, and Opinion on Decision that issued contained an overly rigid analysis of Labor Code section 4060 and whether or not Dr. Michaels was Applicant's primary treating physician. Furthermore, the undersigned's analysis conflicted with 8 CCR 9793 and Labor Code 4604.