Legal Brief Bank


Baker v. WCAB

Last Activity: 7/18/2017

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board decision holding that the IMR timelines are merely directory of a government action, and an untimely IMR determination is nonetheless valid and binding upon the parties. The unpublished decision was issued on July 7, 2017, and the defendant has requested publication.

Vanguard v. Baker (Anguizola)

Last Activity: 7/13/2017

An indicted provider has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that new anti-fraud provisions of SB 1160 and AB 1244 violate his due process rights. Dr. Eduardo Anguizola is claiming that the laws are too broad, because they encompass defendants who are merely charged, but not convicted, of medical fraud and because all liens are stayed regardless of any connection to the alleged criminal activity. US District Judge George Wu has issued a tentative ruling indicating that he will issue an injunction as requested (Judge Wu was also the trial judge in the Angelotti case).

City of Jackson v. WCAB (Rice)

Last Activity: 6/30/2017

In a published decision, the Court of Appeal held that apportionment to causation may properly include apportionment to a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The Court concluded that there is no relevant distinction between allowing apportionment based on a preexisting congenital or pathological condition and allowing apportionment based on a preexisting degenerative condition caused by heredity or genetics. Applicant filed a Petition for Review at the Calif Supreme Court on 6/6/17.

Stevens v. WCAB

Last Activity: 6/30/2017

In 2015, the Court of Appeal found that the statutory review processes for medical treatment, utilization review, and independent medical review are a constitutional exercise of the Legislature's plenary authority to create a complete workers' compensation system. In 2017, the Appeals Board issued a new Decision After Remittitur, and denied defendant's Petition for Reconsideration.

Hikida v. WCAB (Costco)

Last Activity: 6/22/2017

In a published decision from the Court of Appeal, the court held that disability resulting from medical treatment for which the employer is responsible is not apportionable. While the law relieves the defense from liability for negligence in the provision of medical treatment, it does not relieve the defense of the obligation to compensate the injured worker for the resulting disability without apportionment.

Ramirez v. WCAB

Last Activity: 6/14/2017

The Court of Appeal held that the Legislature's plenary authority over UR and IMR was sufficient to overcome applicant's constitutional challenges to the medical dispute resolution process. With CWCI opposing, applicant's Petition for Review has now been denied.

Southern Ins v. WCAB (Berrios-Segovia)

Last Activity: 5/22/2017

The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator was incorrect when he found that, as a matter of law, the insurer could not rescind a workers' compensation insurance policy based on allegation that policy was procured by fraud. The decision outlines the correct procedures to rescind a WC policy, and to enforce the rescission. The appellate decision was ordered published on May 22, 2017.

Calif WC Interpreters Assn v. WCAB

Last Activity: 5/03/2017

A group of interpreters sought to prohibit the WCAB from enforcing certain provisions of SB 1160, including the requirement for lien claimants to submit a sworn declaration with all liens filed after 1/1/17. Following a round of supplemental briefing, the Court of Appeal denied the petition.

Hallmark Marketing v. WCAB (Southard)

Last Activity: 4/12/2017

Court of Appeal originally granted defense Petition for Writ, where the Board Panel Decision below held that an untimely IMR was invalid, and medical necessity could be determined by the WCJ. The parties settled the dispute, and the case has been dismissed.

King v. CompPartners

Last Activity: 4/12/2017

In a case now pending at the California Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal has held that a physician-patient relationship existed between plaintiffs (an injured worker and his wife) and the URO/UR physicians, and that plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint in an effort to establish a violation of a duty of care.

Page v. Parisotto

Last Activity: 3/21/2017

In a class action lawsuit alleging systemic gender bias in the workers' comp system, plaintiffs contended that benefits were being awarded on the basis of stereotypes in violation of equal opportunity protections. The case was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court judge, after she determined that she had no jurisdiction over the claims.

Waveform Lab v. EK Health

Last Activity: 3/02/2017

In an unpublished decision from the Court of Appeal, it was held that the UR process was not an official proceeding subject to anti-SLAPP [strategic lawsuit against public participation] procedures. Waveform has alleged that EK Health and others conspired to defame Waveform and consistently denied authorization for H-Wave device in treatment of individual patients, in violation of the Cartwright Act, and the case has now been transferred to federal court with Trial set for 10/24/2017.

Barri v. WCAB

Last Activity: 2/17/2017

A convicted provider sought to enjoin the WCAB from suspending providers from the workers' compensation system, and from staying their liens. Chiropractor Michael Barri made constitutional arguments seeking to block enforcement of certain provisions of SB 1160 and AB 1244, contending that the new laws interfered with his right to counsel and violated prohibitions against ex post facto laws. Just one day after the lawsuit was filed, the Court of Appeal dismissed it.

CHP v. WCAB (Margaris)

Last Activity: 7/13/2016

In a published decision based upon a finding that statutory time limits applicable to government action are merely directory (rather than mandatory or jurisdictional), the Court of Appeal held that an untimely IMR determination is valid and binding on the parties.

Cornejo v. Younique Cafe

Last Activity: 4/12/2016

The registration and bonding requirements of B&P Code sections 22450 and 22455 do not apply to a lien claimant copy service seeking to recover fees that are medical-legal expenses under LC section 4620(a), if the lien claimant is an agent and/or independent contractor of a member of the State Bar at the time the documents are photocopied.

Page  of  5  with up to entries per page, 81 entries total       Last