What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Lien Claimant Premier Psychological Services from Findings and Order dated 4/7/22 denying payment request under Labor Code section 4603.2(b)(1)(B)
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 request for payment was not timely submitted within the statutory 12-month period, and no exception applied because the claim was never found compensable. Therefore, the request is barred under the plain meaning of the statute.
From the decision · page 4In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not submit its bill to the carrier within the statutory 12 month period. The last date of service was 8/13/18 and the bill was first submitted on 8/28/19.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The request for payment was first submitted on 8/28/19, more than 12 months after the last date of service on 8/13/18.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This untimely submission barred the payment request under Labor Code section 4603.2(b)(1)(B).
From the decision · page 4In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not submit its bill to the carrier within the statutory 12 month period. The last date of service was 8/13/18 and the bill was first submitted on 8/28/19.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4603.2(b)(1)(B)
The statute bars requests for payment not submitted within 12 months unless an exception applies. The claim was denied and never found compensable, so no exception applied.
From the decision · page 4In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not submit its bill to the carrier within the statutory 12 month period. The last date of service was 8/13/18 and the bill was first submitted on 8/28/19.
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.