What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied; treating physicians' medical-legal reports are admissible evidence.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 10, 2025 WCAB Opinion and Order granting reconsideration of the exclusion of treating physicians' reports and their admissibility.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold June 10, 2025.
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 WCAB found that the treating physicians' reports were admissible because defendant relinquished medical control after denying liability, allowing applicant to self-procure treatment and obtain medical-legal reports, which are authorized under the Labor Code and regulations.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 10, 2025 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration (O&O), wherein the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that applicant, while employed by defendant from May 1, 2001 to May 18, 2023 claims to have sustained industrial injury to her back, neck, stress, and "multiple body parts," including stroke, brain, head, face, speech, bilateral upper extremities, bilateral lower extremities, circulatory and nervous systems. We ordered, in relevant part, that the reports of treating physicians Mark Zuber, D.C., Adrienne Pasek, Psy.D., and Kasra Maasumi, M.D., are admissible in evidence, and may be submitted to properly selected Qualified and Agreed Medical Evaluators (QME/AMEs).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant denied all liability on August 9, 2023, relinquishing medical control over applicant's treatment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This allowed applicant to self-procure treatment and obtain medical-legal reports from treating physicians, making the reports admissible evidence.
From the decision · page 2On August 9, 2023, defendant denied all liability for applicant's claim and requested a panel of QMEs in orthopedic surgery pursuant to section 4060. (Ex. 1, Defense Denial Letter and Panel Request, dated August 9, 2023.)
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.
Determined applicant's condition reached permanent and stationary status and issued a comprehensive medical-legal report.
Dr. Zuber conducted a telemedicine evaluation and issued a permanent and stationary report, which was challenged but ultimately deemed admissible.
From the decision · page 2On April 19, 2024, applicant designated Mark Zuber, D.C., as her primary treating physician pursuant to section 4600. (Ex. 2, Primary Treating Physician Designation Letter, dated April 19, 2024.)
Issued a permanent and stationary comprehensive medical-legal report in psychology, admissible as evidence.
Reports were found admissible as part of the treating physicians' medical-legal reports despite defendant's objections.
From the decision · page 3On September 2, 2024, Adrienne Pasek, Psy.D., issued a "Secondary Treating Physician's Initial and PR-4 Permanent and Stationary Comprehensive Medical Legal Evaluation and Report" in the specialty of psychology. (Ex. 6, Report of Adrienne Pasek, Psy.D., dated September 2, 2024.)
Issued a permanent and stationary comprehensive medical-legal report in neurology/internal medicine, admissible as evidence.
Reports were found admissible as part of the treating physicians' medical-legal reports despite defendant's objections.
From the decision · page 3On October 1, 2024, Kasra Maasumi, M.D., issued a "Secondary Treating Physician's Initial and PR-4 Permanent and Stationary Comprehensive Medical Legal Evaluation and Report" in the specialty of neurology/internal medicine. (Ex. 7, Report of Kasra Maasumi, M.D., dated October 1, 2024.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 4060(b), 4062.2, 4064(a), 4600(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sections 9785(a)(8), 9785(d), 10116.9(m); Valdez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1231
Treating physicians may issue medical-legal reports upon determining permanent and stationary status, which are admissible evidence.
The WCAB applied these standards to find the treating physicians' reports admissible despite defendant's objections, as defendant relinquished medical control after denying liability.
From the decision · page 8We again observe, however, that following defendant's denial of all liability for applicant's claim on August 9, 2023, any medical treatment sought by applicant in response to her alleged industrial injuries would necessarily be self-procured. (Lab. Code, § 4600(a); McCoy v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82 [31 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].) And while treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of an industrial injury is statutorily authorized under section 4600(a), a treating physician may, in the exercise of their medical judgment, declare an injured worker to be permanent and stationary. The determination is based on an assessment of whether the injured worker's "condition is well stabilized, and unlikely to change substantially in the next year with or without medical treatment." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(a)(8); § 10116.9(m); italics added.) Thus, a treating physician is authorized to determine that an injured worker has reached a permanent and stationary plateau and issue the corresponding reporting irrespective of whether medical treatment is anticipated to change applicant's condition over the following year.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant's denial of liability relinquished medical control, allowing applicant to self-procure treatment.
From the decision · page 8We again observe, however, that following defendant's denial of all liability for applicant's claim on August 9, 2023, any medical treatment sought by applicant in response to her alleged industrial injuries would necessarily be self-procured. (Lab. Code, § 4600(a); McCoy v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82 [31 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].) And while treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of an industrial injury is statutorily authorized under section 4600(a), a treating physician may, in the exercise of their medical judgment, declare an injured worker to be permanent and stationary. The determination is based on an assessment of whether the injured worker's "condition is well stabilized, and unlikely to change substantially in the next year with or without medical treatment." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(a)(8); § 10116.9(m); italics added.) Thus, a treating physician is authorized to determine that an injured worker has reached a permanent and stationary plateau and issue the corresponding reporting irrespective of whether medical treatment is anticipated to change applicant's condition over the following year.
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.