ADJ10540221 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Reconsideration granted; prior Findings and Order dated July 29, 2025 rescinded; new Findings substituted; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings on medical necessity of requested treatment.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on July 29, 2025, which denied expedited review and found the Utilization Review determination timely; the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Order, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

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.

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailed

The WCAB found that the defendant's March 26, 2025 UR determination was untimely because no medical professional reviewed the expedited request within the required 72-hour timeframe, thus vesting jurisdiction in the WCAB to determine medical necessity.

From the decision · page 8submitted on March 21, 2025 established the need for expedited review, or that any such determination was communicated to the prescribing physician within 72 hours of defendant's receipt of the RFA. As a result, defendant's March 26, 2025 UR decision was untimely, and the WCAB is vested with jurisdiction over the underlying medical treatment dispute. (Dubon v. World Restoration (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298 [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 131].) Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the F&O, substitute new Findings of Fact that defendant's March 26, 2025 UR determination was untimely, and return this matter to the WCJ for determination of whether applicant has met the burden of establishing that the requested medical treatment is medically necessary under applicable medical treatment utilization schedule and recommended guidelines. (Lab. Code, § 4604.5; 5307.27 et seq.)

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code

Labor Code section 4610(i)(3)

Requires expedited review within 72 hours for requests where the employee faces an imminent and serious threat to health.

From the decision · page 5If the employee's condition is one in which the employee faces an imminent and serious threat to the employee's health, including, but not limited to, the potential loss of life, limb, or other major bodily function, or the normal timeframe for the decision making process, as described in paragraph (1), would be detrimental to the employee's life or health or could jeopardize the employee's ability to regain maximum function, decisions to approve, modify, or deny requests by physicians prior to, or concurrent with, the provision of medical treatment services to employees shall be made in a timely fashion that is appropriate for the nature of the employee's condition, but not to exceed 72 hours after the receipt of the information reasonably necessary to make the determination.

California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9792.9.1(c)(4)

WCAB Rule 9792.9.1(c)(4)

Mandates that expedited review decisions be made within 72 hours by a medical professional certifying the need for expedited review.

From the decision · page 6(4) Prospective or concurrent decisions to approve, modify, delay, or deny a request for authorization related to an expedited review shall be made in a timely fashion appropriate to the injured worker's condition, not to exceed 72 hours after the receipt of the written information reasonably necessary to make the determination. The requesting physician must certify in writing and document the need for an expedited review upon submission of the request. A request for expedited review that is not reasonably supported by evidence establishing that the injured worker faces an imminent and serious threat to his or her health, or that the timeframe for utilization review under subdivision (c)(3) would be detrimental to the injured worker's condition, shall be reviewed by the claims administrator under the timeframe set forth in subdivision (c)(3).

Labor Code

Labor Code section 5909

Requires the Appeals Board to act on petitions for reconsideration within 60 days of case transmission.

From the decision · page 4Former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

ADJ10540221 · January 5, 2026

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