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 / IMRMixedhome health care services
The WCJ found the RFAs were timely non-certified, but the petitioner contended the Utilization Reviews were untimely; the parties ultimately resolved the dispute by stipulation, which the WCAB approved.
From the decision · page 1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 30, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that the RFA for 84 hours a week of home health assistance dated January 15, 2019 was timely non-certified as was the September 7, 2020 RFA, and that the Patterson decision did not apply to this case to authorize ongoing services pursuant to a Stipulated Agreement by the parties dated July 10, 2018.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours neutral
This settlement resolved the dispute over the timeliness and certification of the Requests for Authorization for home health care services, leading to the WCAB's approval and rescission of the prior WCJ decision.