What the panel ordered
February 27, 2014 en banc decision rescinded; Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant denied; September 20, 2013 Findings and Order of WCJ affirmed
Petition for Reconsideration filed by State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) granted; prior en banc decision rescinded and matter remanded to WCJ for further proceedings on medical necessity of spinal surgery
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 22, 2014, February 27, 2014.
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 Board held that if a UR decision is timely and valid, medical necessity is resolved by IMR; if untimely, medical necessity is determined by the WCAB based on substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 1617 E. IF A UR DECISION IS UNTIMELY, THE DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL NECESSITY MAY BE MADE BY THE WCAB BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE
The Board held that timeliness of a UR decision is a legal dispute within the WCAB's jurisdiction and not subject to IMR.
From the decision · page 114 1. A utilization review (UR) decision is invalid and not subject to independent
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
UR decision by Dr. deGrange was deficient for not reviewing all relevant medical records as required by ACOEM guidelines.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This undermined the validity of the UR decision, making it untimely and invalid, thus medical necessity must be determined by the WCAB, favoring the applicant.
From the decision · page 423 failure of Dr. deGrange, and implicitly of Dr. Deitel, to review all of the relevant medical records "was a
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.
AME report considered in relation to medical necessity of spinal surgery.
From the decision · page 212 Jr., M.D. The agreed medical evaluator (AME) in orthopedics has been Israel Rottermann, M.D.
Primary treating physician for applicant's injuries, involved in consideration of spinal surgery.
From the decision · page 210 employed by World Restoration, Inc., SCIF's insured. Applicant's primary treating physician for both
Consulting orthopedic surgeon with multiple reports supporting consideration of spinal surgery.
From the decision · page 211 injuries has been Mark W. Brown, M.D. His consulting orthopedic surgeon has been Albert Simpkins,
Discogram report positive for discogenic pain at L4-5 and L5-S1, supporting surgery consideration.
From the decision · page 37 Lowenstein, M.D., found that applicant's discogram was positive for discogenic pain at L4-5 and L5-S1.
UR physician who denied surgery authorization; report found deficient for not reviewing all relevant medical records.
Report did not specify all medical records reviewed and failed to consider all relevant records, undermining validity of UR decision.
From the decision · page 319 July 19, 2013 report of a UR physician, Donald A. deGrange, M.D., a board certified orthopedic surgeon.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 4610, 4610.5, 4604; Sandhagen v. WCAB (2010) 44 Cal.4th 230
Utilization review (UR) decisions must be timely to be valid and subject to independent medical review (IMR); untimely UR decisions are legal disputes for the WCAB to resolve.
The Board held that timeliness of UR decisions is a legal issue for the WCAB, not IMR, and that medical necessity disputes following timely UR decisions are resolved by IMR.
From the decision · page 114 1. A utilization review (UR) decision is invalid and not subject to independent
Labor Code sections 4610, 4610.5, 4604; Sandhagen v. WCAB (2010) 44 Cal.4th 230
If a UR decision is untimely, the medical necessity of treatment must be determined by the WCAB based on substantial medical evidence, not IMR.
The Board held that untimely UR decisions are invalid and medical necessity must be determined by the WCAB on substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 1617 E. IF A UR DECISION IS UNTIMELY, THE DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL NECESSITY MAY BE MADE BY THE WCAB BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Failure of UR physician to review all relevant medical records undermined validity of UR decision
From the decision · page 423 failure of Dr. deGrange, and implicitly of Dr. Deitel, to review all of the relevant medical records "was a
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.