What the panel ordered
June 28, 2006 Findings and Order rescinded; case returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision
Petition for reconsideration granted; June 28, 2006 WCJ Findings and Order rescinded; case returned to trial level for further proceedings
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 lien claimant Ambulatory Surgery Center of Pomona did not have a fictitious-name permit from the Medical Board as required for clinics providing medical treatment, but it was unclear if it was claiming to provide medical treatment as a clinic or only outpatient setting services; the case was remanded for further proceedings to clarify and develop the record.
From the decision · page 116 We previously granted the petition for reconsideration of lien claimant, Ambulatory
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Ambulatory Surgery Center of Pomona did not have a fictitious-name permit issued by the Medical Board as required for clinics providing medical treatment.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure was the basis for disallowing the lien claim and remanding the case for further proceedings to clarify the nature of services provided.
From the decision · page 116 We previously granted the petition for reconsideration of lien claimant, Ambulatory
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.
From the decision · page 41 "In the matter herein, Dr. Calaycay apparently practiced as a
From the decision · page 96 Gandhi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Matus) (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 719 (writ den.). In
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Business and Professions Code sections 17900, 17910, 2285, 2415; Health and Safety Code sections 1200, 1204, 1248, 1248.1
The lien claimant must prove proper licensing, accreditation, fictitious business name statement, and/or fictitious business name permit to support a lien claim for medical treatment or outpatient services.
From the decision · page 116 We previously granted the petition for reconsideration of lien claimant, Ambulatory
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The lien claimant did not have a fictitious-name permit issued by the Medical Board as required for clinics providing medical treatment.
From the decision · page 116 We previously granted the petition for reconsideration of lien claimant, Ambulatory
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.