ADJ15105366 · February 17, 2026

The WCAB found that the November 27, 2024 Minutes of Hearing constituted a valid and enforceable order requiring defendant to provide written authorization for medical treatment within 30 days, which defendant failed to timely provide, warranting reconsideration and further proceedings.

From the decision · page 2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant applicant's Petition, rescind the F&O, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision.

The November 27, 2024 Minutes of Hearing contained a valid and enforceable order requiring defendant to provide written authorization for medical treatment within 30 days.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This order created a substantive right and obligation, making it a final order subject to reconsideration.

From the decision · page 7The WCJ concurred and reduced the agreement to a Minute Order, indicating, "Defendant to provide written authorization [within] 30 days to treating doctor to provide medical treatment to admitted neck, back and [left] foot with treatment subject to [Utilization Review]." (Ibid.) The order reflects the specific issues and terms agreed upon by the parties in resolving the dispute regarding applicant's right to medical treatment and defendant's right to submit treatment requests for utilization review to address questions of medical necessity. We are thus persuaded that the language set forth in the November 27, 2024 Minutes of Hearing represents a valid and enforceable order of the court.

Defendant failed to timely provide the written authorization as required by the November 27, 2024 order.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure constituted an unreasonable delay and refusal or neglect of medical treatment, justifying reconsideration and further proceedings.

From the decision · page 2We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant applicant's Petition, rescind the F&O, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision.

Defendant's MPN physician whose authorization for treatment was disputed by applicant.

From the decision · page 2On October 22, 2024, applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to Expedited Trial (DOR), alleging defendant failed to timely authorize medical treatment with MPN physician Dr. Hannani. (Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, dated October 22, 2024.)

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10330

WCAB Rule 10330 authorizes WCJs to issue interim and final orders necessary for adjudication, including orders on medical treatment authorization.

The November 27, 2024 Minutes of Hearing were found to be a valid and enforceable order under this rule.

From the decision · page 6However, following our review of the record, we are persuaded that the November 27, 2024 Minutes contains a valid order resolving a threshold issue. Our Rules authorize a WCJ to issue both interim and final orders from hearings. WCAB Rule 10330 describes the general authority and responsibilities of WCJs, including the issuance of orders, as follows:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10759, subd. (c)

WCAB Rule 10759(c) allows WCJs to make orders and rulings necessary for resolution of disputes by agreement of the parties.

The parties' agreement at the November 27, 2024 Expedited Hearing was reduced to a Minute Order by the WCJ.

From the decision · page 6The workers' compensation judge may make orders and rulings regarding admission of evidence and discovery matters, including admission of offers of proof and stipulations of testimony where appropriate and necessary for resolution of the dispute(s) by the workers' compensation judge, and may submit and decide the dispute(s) on the record pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

Applicant's inability to treat with Dr. Hannani was due to the physician's office location, not lack of authorization initially, but the failure to timely provide written authorization was found to be a valid issue.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ's Report reiterates that applicant's inability to treat with MPN physician Dr. Hannani stemmed not from a lack of authorization, but from the fact that the selected MPN physician was not available to see applicant at applicant's preferred office location. (Report, at pp. 3-4.)