California WCABPanel decision

ADJ15329380 · October 31, 2025

Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award dated August 5, 2025, is denied.

Issues decided: 3
Medical opinions weighed: 3
Authorities named: 2
District office: Anaheim

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award dated August 5, 2025, is denied.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award dated August 5, 2025, which the WCJ issued, and the WCAB panel denied the petition on October 31, 2025.

Read the official 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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedtrunk · back · hips

The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to the trunk, back, and hips while employed by defendant on September 9, 2021, and the WCAB panel did not disturb this finding.

LiensApplicant prevailed

Medical treatment / UR / IMRApplicant prevailed

The WCJ found the RFAs issued prior to August 9, 2022 by Dr. Russman were not defective, and the WCAB panel did not disturb this finding.

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the trunk, back, and hips on September 9, 2021.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established compensability of the injury, which was upheld by the WCAB panel.

Defendant failed to prove that applicant improperly treated outside the MPN due to lack of evidence that Dr. Greene was in the MPN and no objection served on Dr. Russman.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure meant the medical treatment and corresponding interpreter fees were reasonable and recoverable.

From the decision · page 6(Lab. Code, § 5811(b)(2).) Here, defendant contends that the medical treatment given by Dr. Russman, during which time the disputed interpreting services were used, was not reasonable and necessary because applicant improperly treated outside the defendant's MPN, and, as a result, lien claimant's services are similarly unreasonable, unnecessary, and non-recoverable. (Petition, p. 2.) As parties are well aware, it is defendant's burden to establish the existence of the MPN, and that written notification of the MPN, and all other requisite information under AD Rule 9767.12, was provided to applicant, both before and after the subject injury. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.12.) Treatment through the MPN must also be accessible, not neglectful, and actually available to applicant. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.5; Lab. Code, § 4600(a); see also McCoy v. I.A.C. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82, 87 [31 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] ["the employer is required to provide treatment which is reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the employee's distress, and if he neglects or refuses to do so, he must reimburse the employee for his expenses in obtaining such treatment"].) Although notice of the MPN was apparently given to applicant after the injury (Defense Exhibit C), defendant failed to produce evidence that Dr. Greene was in fact listed within the MPN and provided actual treatment to applicant.

Lien claimant established the market rate for interpreting services and defendant failed to rebut this evidence.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the lien claimant's entitlement to payment at the established market rate.

From the decision · page 8Here, defendant failed to submit any evidence rebutting the market rate outlined by lien claimant. As such, we agree with the WCJ that lien claimant "was entitled to be paid at the market rate." (Report, p. 5.)

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 9767.5 and 9767.12; Labor Code section 4600(a); McCoy v. I.A.C. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82

Defendant bears the burden to establish the existence of the MPN and that written notification of the MPN was provided to applicant before and after the injury. Treatment through the MPN must be accessible and actually available to applicant.

Applied to determine whether applicant improperly treated outside the MPN.

From the decision · page 6(Lab. Code, § 5811(b)(2).) Here, defendant contends that the medical treatment given by Dr. Russman, during which time the disputed interpreting services were used, was not reasonable and necessary because applicant improperly treated outside the defendant's MPN, and, as a result, lien claimant's services are similarly unreasonable, unnecessary, and non-recoverable. (Petition, p. 2.) As parties are well aware, it is defendant's burden to establish the existence of the MPN, and that written notification of the MPN, and all other requisite information under AD Rule 9767.12, was provided to applicant, both before and after the subject injury. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.12.) Treatment through the MPN must also be accessible, not neglectful, and actually available to applicant. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.5; Lab. Code, § 4600(a); see also McCoy v. I.A.C. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82, 87 [31 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] ["the employer is required to provide treatment which is reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the employee's distress, and if he neglects or refuses to do so, he must reimburse the employee for his expenses in obtaining such treatment"].) Although notice of the MPN was apparently given to applicant after the injury (Defense Exhibit C), defendant failed to produce evidence that Dr. Greene was in fact listed within the MPN and provided actual treatment to applicant.

Administrative Director Rule 9795.3

Fees for certified or provisionally certified interpreter services shall be paid by the claims administrator for medical treatment appointments and other specified events, with payment at the market rate if greater than the minimum hourly rate.

Applied to determine the entitlement and reasonableness of lien claimant's interpreter fees.

From the decision · page 7III. Lastly, defendant argues that lien claimant failed to properly establish their market rate. (Petition, pp. 3-4.) On the issue of fees for interpreter services, AD Rule 9795.3 states, in relevant part, that: (a) Fees for services performed by a certified or provisionally certified interpreter, upon

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

Defendant failed to provide evidence that an objection was served on Dr. Russman regarding her alleged non-MPN treatment.

From the decision · page 6As observed by the WCJ, the reports of Dr. Greene were not offered into evidence by defendant. (Report, p. 3.) Defendant similarly failed to provide evidence that an objection was served on Dr. Russman regarding her alleged non-MPN treatment. As such, defendant failed to sustain its burden of proof on the MPN issue. Defendant further contends that the WCJ failed to address whether the treatment provided by Dr. Russman was in accordance with "MTUS or ACOEM guidelines[,]" and that this failure rendered the treatment unreasonable and unnecessary, and any corresponding interpreter fees, non- recoverable. (Petition, p. 3.) Based upon our review of the Pretrial Conference Statement preceding the May 8, 2025 trial date, and the corresponding Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), we see no evidence that this issue was previously raised. As such, we agree with the WCJ that this "contention lacks merit because this issue was not one of the issues listed in dispute for the court to decide at the time of trial." (Report, p. 4.)

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

Defendant failed to produce evidence that Dr. Greene was listed within the MPN and provided actual treatment to applicant.

From the decision · page 6(Lab. Code, § 5811(b)(2).) Here, defendant contends that the medical treatment given by Dr. Russman, during which time the disputed interpreting services were used, was not reasonable and necessary because applicant improperly treated outside the defendant's MPN, and, as a result, lien claimant's services are similarly unreasonable, unnecessary, and non-recoverable. (Petition, p. 2.) As parties are well aware, it is defendant's burden to establish the existence of the MPN, and that written notification of the MPN, and all other requisite information under AD Rule 9767.12, was provided to applicant, both before and after the subject injury. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.12.) Treatment through the MPN must also be accessible, not neglectful, and actually available to applicant. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.5; Lab. Code, § 4600(a); see also McCoy v. I.A.C. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 82, 87 [31 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] ["the employer is required to provide treatment which is reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the employee's distress, and if he neglects or refuses to do so, he must reimburse the employee for his expenses in obtaining such treatment"].) Although notice of the MPN was apparently given to applicant after the injury (Defense Exhibit C), defendant failed to produce evidence that Dr. Greene was in fact listed within the MPN and provided actual treatment to applicant.

Documentary evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

Defendant failed to submit any evidence rebutting the market rate outlined by lien claimant.

From the decision · page 8Here, defendant failed to submit any evidence rebutting the market rate outlined by lien claimant. As such, we agree with the WCJ that lien claimant "was entitled to be paid at the market rate." (Report, p. 5.)

ADJ15329380 · October 31, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page