What the panel ordered
WCAB affirmed the WCJ's March 6, 2014 Findings and Order reinstating nurse case manager services
Petition for reconsideration granted by defendant; WCJ decision affirmed after reconsideration by WCAB panel
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 found and the WCAB affirmed that nurse case manager services are a form of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600, and defendant's unilateral termination was not supported by substantial medical evidence. The use of expedited hearing was proper under Labor Code section 5502(b)(1).
From the decision · page 111 We previously granted defendant's petition for reconsideration of the March 6, 2014 Findings
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant unilaterally terminated nurse case manager services previously authorized as reasonable medical treatment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This unilateral termination was not supported by substantial medical evidence and was contrary to Labor Code section 4600.
From the decision · page 118 defendant "to reinstate services of a nurse case manager," that were authorized by defendant before it
Dr. Noble's AME report recommended nurse case manager services due to effects of polypharmacy on applicant's cognitive and psyche functioning.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The AME's opinion was relied upon by the WCJ and WCAB to find the services reasonable and necessary medical treatment.
From the decision · page 102 report (Exhibit FF) of Dr. Noble, who described the provision of nurse case manager services as
Defendant failed to present substantial medical evidence showing a change in applicant's condition to justify termination of nurse case manager services.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without such evidence, the termination was improper and the services must be reinstated.
From the decision · page 1022 Defendant failed to meet its burden of showing by substantial evidence that applicant's condition
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Noble recommended nurse case manager services as reasonable medical treatment due to effects of polypharmacy on cognitive and psyche functioning.
Dr. Noble's report supported the need for nurse case manager services as reasonable medical treatment.
From the decision · page 102 report (Exhibit FF) of Dr. Noble, who described the provision of nurse case manager services as
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4600
Provision of nurse case manager services is a form of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600.
The Board held that nurse case manager services are included in the medical treatment obligation of the employer under section 4600.
From the decision · page 611 1. The Provision Of A Nurse Case Manager Is A Form Of Medical Treatment Under Labor
Labor Code section 5502(b)(1)
Use of expedited hearing to address medical treatment issues is authorized under Labor Code section 5502(b)(1).
The Board held that the expedited hearing was proper to address the unilateral termination of nurse case manager services.
From the decision · page 95 3. Use Of An Expedited Hearing To Address The Medical Treatment Issue In This Case Is
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's medical condition and need for nurse case manager services supported by AME's extensive opinion and medical evidence; defendant failed to present contrary substantial medical evidence to justify termination.
From the decision · page 5"The burden of proof for the need for the NCM services is adequately met
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.