Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298 (Appeals Board en banc); Labor Code section 4610.5(d)
The WCAB may exercise jurisdiction over medical treatment requests for which UR determinations are untimely irrespective of whether or not applicant seeks an IMR; applicant may request an IMR of UR decisions denying or modifying treatment requests irrespective of whether or not applicant challenges the UR decision as untimely.
Applied to reject defendant's contention that the August 22, 2016 IMR denial should be relied upon over the April 20, 2016 IMR authorization.
From the decision · page 5Moreover, we are unaware of any authority, and defendant cites none, for the proposition
that the June 17, 2016 UR determination, though untimely, may be deemed valid and enforceable
depending upon which, if any, legal remedy applicant should choose. To the contrary, our reading
of the authorities is that (1) the WCAB may exercise jurisdiction over medical treatment requests
for which UR determinations are untimely irrespective of whether or not applicant seeks an IMR;
and (2) applicant "may request an independent medical review" of UR decisions denying or
modifying treatment requests irrespective of whether or not applicant challenges the UR decision
as untimely. (Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298 (Appeals Board
en banc) (writ den.) (Dubon); see also Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc. (2014) 79
Cal.Comp.Cases 313; Bodam v. San Bernardino County/Department of Soc. Servs. (2014) 79
Cal.Comp.Cases 1519, 1521 (significant panel decision); Labor Code § 4610.5(d).)
County of Kern v. T.C.E.F, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 301
Substance prevails over form in statutory construction; findings of fact need not be labeled as such if the substance is present.
Applied to reject defendant's contention that the WCJ failed to set forth findings of fact in the Order.
From the decision · page 5Turning to defendant's contention that the WCJ erroneously failed to set forth her findings
of fact in the Order, we note that the contents of the Order are not labeled as findings. Nonetheless,
we agree with the WCJ that the Order sets forth the WCJ's findings as to Lien Claimant's
entitlement to payments for services rendered, reimbursement of its filing fee, penalty for
defendant's delay in payment of the outstanding charges, and interest. (Report, p. 2.) To conclude
otherwise would improperly place form over substance. (County of Kern v. T.C.E.F, Inc. (2016)