What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
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 WCJ and WCAB panel found that the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute was not the correct remedy because the petitioner failed to request Independent Bill Review (IBR) after a second bill review, which is mandatory under Labor Code 4603.3 and 4603.6. The defective Explanation of Review (EOR) did not excuse the petitioner from the IBR process. The petition was denied accordingly.
From the decision · page 5On September 6, 2023, this WCJ issued a Findings of Fact and Order and Opinion on Decision, wherein it was found, in pertinent part, that: (1) Dr. Halbridge has standing to Pursue the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute; (2) The Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute is not the correct remedy in this matter; and (3) Dr. Halbridge was required to request IBR before pursuing the Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute. The Petition for Determination of Medical-Legal Expense Dispute was denied via Order and it was noted that the remaining issues are moot.