What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted, WCJ's Findings and Order rescinded, matter remanded for further proceedings and new decision.
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 Appeals Board found the trial record did not contain substantial evidence to determine whether Dr. Ram's Request for a Second Bill Review was timely, requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3Dr. Ram and defendant proceeded to trial on April 4, 2022. The issues submitted for decision included Dr. Ram's petition for costs and "Whether the WCAB has jurisdiction over IBR [Independent Bill Review] disputes." (Minutes of Hearing (MOH), April 4, 2022, p. 2.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The trial record did not contain substantial evidence to determine whether Dr. Ram's Request for a Second Bill Review was timely.
Favours neutral