Beta Healthcare Group Roseville

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

• AOE/COE3
• QME/AME process2
• Cumulative trauma1
• Psyche AOE/COE1
• Liens1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Temporary disability1

Where they appear

• Los Angeles 3
• Van Nuys 3
• Riverside 2
• Lodi 1
• Oakland 1
• Santa Ana 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 6 for the applicant
• 6 for the defense

Counted over 11 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ10790437 · 2026-05-08 · Riverside District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the February 9, 2026 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR), wherein the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found in pertinent part, that: 1) the applicant, while employed during the period from November 1, 2011 through September 20, 2016 as a Charge Nurse, by Parkview Community Hospital sustained injury to her cervical spine and a dental injury arising out of and in the course of employment as a Charge Nurse; 2) lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center met its burden pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4620(a) to show that a contested claim existed when applicant was evaluated by Dr. Schames beginning on January 9, 2018; 3) lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center met its burden under section 4621 to show its services were reasonable and necessary at the time they were provided beginning on January 9, 2018; 4) lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center is entitled to payment under section 4622 for services it provided beginning on January 9, 2018, and deferred the amount owed. The WCAB also deferred the issue of whether lien claimant is entitled to payment for medical treatment provided to applicant.

  The WCAB found substantial medical evidence supporting that applicant sustained a dental injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the medical reports of Dr. Mayer Schames and the repeated requests for dental specialist authorization by PTP Dr. Stokes. The lien claimant met its burden to show services were reasonable and necessary. The WCAB deferred the amount owed for medical treatment to trial level for further determination.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10790437 · 2026-02-09 · Riverside District OfficeLiensmixed

  Determinative passage · p.10through September 20, 2016 as a Charge Nurse, by Parkview Community Hospital sustained injury to her cervical spine and a dental injury arising out of and in the course of employment as a Charge Nurse. 2. The issue of whether lien claimant The Dental Center is entitled to payment for medical treatment provided to applicant is deferred. 3. Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center met its burden under Labor Code section 4620 to show a contested claim existed at the time it provided its services beginning on January 9, 2018. 4. Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center met its burden under Labor Code section 4621 to show its services were reasonable and necessary at the time they were provided beginning on January 9, 2018. 5. Lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center is entitled to payment under Labor Code section 4622 for services it provided beginning on January 9, 2018, the issue of the amount owed, including interest and penalties, is deferred.

  Lien claimant met its burden to show a contested claim existed and its services were reasonable and necessary; entitlement to payment and amount owed deferred.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ18201897 · 2025-06-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5IV. Finally, we turn to the merits and begin by noting that the employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, applicant met that burden by presenting the credible testimony, her own and that of defendant's witness, that she sustained industrial injury on March 14, 2023. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 2/3/25, at pp. 5:15-16; 15:22-23; 6:23-25; 7:4-10; 9:1-3. The WCJ found all the witnesses, including defendant's witness, to be credible and that their testimony supported the finding that applicant sustained industrial injury on March 14, 2023. We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.

  Applicant met the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by presenting credible testimony, corroborated by defendant's witness and documentary evidence, that she sustained an industrial injury on March 14, 2023. The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and documentary evidence supported the finding.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ18397268 · 2025-01-13 · Los Angeles District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, defendant agreed to Dr. Rubanenko as the PQME, and Dr Rubanenko already issued his PQME Report based on this agreement. (App. Ex. A, pp. 1-4; App. Ex. 3, p. 1.) Therefore, defendant cannot choose a different PQME at such a late stage of the QME process.

  Defendant agreed to use Dr. Rubanenko as PQME and did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denial of removal; reconsideration is adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ13070871 · 2023-09-15 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

  Determinative passage · p.21As discussed above, one of the issues raised for trial, was applicant's claim for temporary disability, and again, as discussed above, I was able to make a determination regarding one period of disability. However, the evidence reflects that applicant may also be entitled to temporary disability before she began treating with Dr. Morley. For example, on December 7, 2020, Dr. Smallie wrote that applicant was not permanent and stationary and that applicant required work restrictions. (Exhibit A, pp. 5-6.) However, there is no evidence that defendant made applicant an offer of modified work upon receipt of that report. Similarly, the record reflected that applicant required work restrictions before she resigned, that she was missing up to four days a month from work because of pain, and that applicant believed that her employer was not accommodating her restrictions. (Exhibit E at pp. 23:24-25:7; Exhibit 8 at p. 8.) However, none of Dr.

  The record was found insufficient to fully adjudicate temporary disability entitlement prior to April 4, 2022, requiring further development. Temporary disability was awarded for April 4, 2022 through September 7, 2022 based on credible testimony and medical reports.

  Official decision · page 21 →
• ADJ10990990 · 2021-04-09 · Van Nuys District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks removal of the Findings of Fact issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 28, 2021. By the Findings of Fact, the WCJ found that there was no factual or legal basis to strike the agreed medical evaluator (AME) and denied applicant's petition to strike the AME.

  Applicant failed to meet burden of proof showing Dr. Gilberg had a disqualifying conflict of interest under AD Rule 41.5; Dr. Gilberg's lack of financial remuneration and no acceptance of network referrals supported impartiality.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15298613 · 2026-04-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Finding(s), Order(s), and Opinion on Decision" issued on February 9, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant established good cause for a replacement panel due to the unavailability of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) to set an initial evaluation appointment.

  The WCJ properly applied the Vazquez factors and found good cause for replacement due to QME unavailability, and the Appeals Board found no abuse of discretion in denying removal.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12634746 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&O) on June 20, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, July 15, 2025 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on August 25, 2025 is untimely and must be dismissed.

  The petition for reconsideration was filed after the jurisdictional deadline, so the Appeals Board has no authority to consider it.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ19847475 · 2025-04-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 10, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is April 11, 2025. This decision is issued by or on April 11, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

  The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909(a) and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ18784660 · 2024-11-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1I. Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board. (b)

  The petition for reconsideration was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, but the underlying order was not final as it resolved only an intermediate procedural issue. Removal was denied as petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15076668 · 2023-11-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

  The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

• BETA HEALTHCARE GROUP
• BETA HEALTHCARE GROUP ROSEVILLE
• Beta Healthcare Group Roseville
• BETA Healthcare Group
• Beta Healthcare Group
• BETA HEALTHCARE

Is this your company and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.