What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's Findings and Order upheld allowing applicant to treat outside defendant's MPN due to defendant's failure to prove provision of medical care and notices.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Joint Findings and Order issued on August 12, 2025. The WCJ recommended denial of the petition, and the Appeals Board timely acted on the petition on October 13, 2025.
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.
Defendant failed to provide evidence of valid MPN notices or medical treatment within the MPN, resulting in an adverse inference of neglect or refusal to treat, allowing applicant to treat outside the MPN.
From the decision · page 5This matter was proceeded to trial on the applicant's designation of Boomerang Medical Group as the applicant has elected PTP, see Joint. Exh. X1, and defendant's contention that the group is not within the defendant's MPN and applicant must treat within the MPN.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to submit any evidence of valid MPN notices or medical treatment within the MPN.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure led to an adverse inference of neglect or refusal to treat, allowing the applicant to treat outside the MPN.
From the decision · page 6Defendant contends that applicant has not met her burden to establish neglect or a refusal to provide treatment. This burden however is misplaced, it is the defendant's burden to establish the existence of the MPN, that defendant provided the required Notices of the MPN, 8 Cal. Code of Regs. § 9767.12, both prior to the injury and subsequent to the injury, and that treatment was provided and not neglected. In order to meet this burden, the defendant must submit evidence of its MPN, the notices provided and the treatment offered. The defendant did not submit any evidence, either documentary or through testimony, to meet its burden. As set forth in the Opinion on Decision, the court addressed Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cas. 1423 as well as Senate Bill 863 which resulted in Labor Code § 4616.3(b)1 being implemented. In its analysis, the court held as follows:
Defendant did not list any evidence on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement as required, making such evidence inadmissible.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without admissible evidence, defendant could not rebut applicant's claim of neglect or refusal to treat.
From the decision · page 7On page 4 lines 14-25, the defendant attempts to argue, "(T)here is no evidence that treatment was interrupted, delayed, or denied." Part of this statement is true, there was no evidence submitted by the defendant from which the court could rely on to show the defendant has established control and provided treatment. The parties are required to fill out a PTCS at the MSC. This was done, these issues were raised and the defendant failed to offer any evidence to support its position that there was a valid MPN, that notices were provided, or that medical treatment was provided.T here was no evidence listed by the defendant on either of the PTCS completed (marked as ID ONLY in EAMS for the convenience of the Board). As set forth by defendant and the court in its Opinion on Decision, pages 2 and 3, § 5502(d)(3) closes discovery on the day of the MSC, except as to evidence not known of before the MSC or was not available.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code §4600, Labor Code §4616.3(b), 8 Cal. Code of Regs. §9767.12, Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006), San Diego Unified School District v. WCAB (Robledo) (2013), Ovando v. Bodycote International, Inc. (2016)
Defendant has the burden to prove existence of MPN, provision of required notices, and medical treatment; failure to provide evidence results in adverse inference of neglect or refusal to treat allowing treatment outside MPN.
Applied to find defendant failed to meet burden of proof, resulting in denial of reconsideration and allowance for applicant to treat outside MPN.
From the decision · page 6Defendant contends that applicant has not met her burden to establish neglect or a refusal to provide treatment. This burden however is misplaced, it is the defendant's burden to establish the existence of the MPN, that defendant provided the required Notices of the MPN, 8 Cal. Code of Regs. § 9767.12, both prior to the injury and subsequent to the injury, and that treatment was provided and not neglected. In order to meet this burden, the defendant must submit evidence of its MPN, the notices provided and the treatment offered. The defendant did not submit any evidence, either documentary or through testimony, to meet its burden. As set forth in the Opinion on Decision, the court addressed Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cas. 1423 as well as Senate Bill 863 which resulted in Labor Code § 4616.3(b)1 being implemented. In its analysis, the court held as follows:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant did not submit any evidence of providing medical treatment or MPN notices, despite having knowledge of such evidence before the mandatory settlement conference.
From the decision · page 6Defendant contends that applicant has not met her burden to establish neglect or a refusal to provide treatment. This burden however is misplaced, it is the defendant's burden to establish the existence of the MPN, that defendant provided the required Notices of the MPN, 8 Cal. Code of Regs. § 9767.12, both prior to the injury and subsequent to the injury, and that treatment was provided and not neglected. In order to meet this burden, the defendant must submit evidence of its MPN, the notices provided and the treatment offered. The defendant did not submit any evidence, either documentary or through testimony, to meet its burden. As set forth in the Opinion on Decision, the court addressed Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cas. 1423 as well as Senate Bill 863 which resulted in Labor Code § 4616.3(b)1 being implemented. In its analysis, the court held as follows:
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.