What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed and reviewed by WCAB panel after WCJ 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.
Applicant did not fax the request for authorization to the designated fax number for utilization review, so the denial was not untimely.
From the decision · page 1As relevant here, Administrative Director Rule 9792.6.1(t)(3) provides that the request for authorization "must be signed by the treating physician and may be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to, if designated, the address, fax number, or e-mail address designated by the claims administrator for this purpose...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.6.1(t)(3), emphasis added.) We agree with the WCJ that applicant did not fax the request for authorization (RFA) to the fax number designated by defendant for that purpose. Consequently, we also agree that defendant's utilization review (UR) denial was not untimely.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's counsel faxed the RFA to a general fax number, not the designated UR fax number.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant the utilization review process was not properly initiated on April 5, 2021.
From the decision · page 5While admittedly providing the parties with a general fax number to obtain records per letter of 3/21/2021 (Joint Exhibit 2), this is clearly a different fax number noticed for Utilization Review requests noted in communication April 21, 2020 (Defendant's Exhibit A). As there was a failure to fax RFA's in question to the designated fax number, this WCJ determined that the UR process was not initiated at that time or specifically on April 5, 2021. As the utilization review process as defined under the labor code was not appropriately initiated, applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof that utilization review was untimely.
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.
Recommended surgery and related treatments with RFAs dated February 15, 2021 and March 8, 2021.
The medical treatment requests were central to the utilization review timeliness issue.
From the decision · page 3the applicant, a 56 year old driver, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his low back while employed by Corona Auto Parts Recycling on November 15, 2017. As a result of said injury applicant most recently has been treated by Kambiz Hannani MD. In February and March of 2021 Dr. Hannani had recommended treatment with Request for Authorization (RFA) dated February 15, 2021 and March 8, 2021 specifically recommending surgery consisting of L4-5 and L3-4 decompression. Additionally, Dr. Hannani requested authorization for preoperative clearance, sessions of physical therapy pre and post-op, raised toilet seat, one day hospital stay, and orthopedic assistance surgeon. RFA's were faxed by applicant's counsel directed to a general fax number of defendant on April 5, 2021. Prior to that date defendant had communicated to applicant's counsel on April 21, 2020 providing a specific and different fax number or e-mail address for purpose of utilization review requests. Ultimately, Utilization Review (UR) denied the care per decision dated April 19, 2021.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 9792.6.1(t)(3)
Administrative Director Rule 9792.6.1(t)(3) requires RFAs to be sent to designated addresses.
Applicant did not send RFA to designated fax number, so UR denial was not untimely.
From the decision · page 1As relevant here, Administrative Director Rule 9792.6.1(t)(3) provides that the request for authorization "must be signed by the treating physician and may be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to, if designated, the address, fax number, or e-mail address designated by the claims administrator for this purpose...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.6.1(t)(3), emphasis added.) We agree with the WCJ that applicant did not fax the request for authorization (RFA) to the fax number designated by defendant for that purpose. Consequently, we also agree that defendant's utilization review (UR) denial was not untimely.
Labor Code Section 4610; CCR 9792.9.1
Labor Code Section 4610 and CCR 9792.9.1 set timelines and procedures for utilization review.
Defendant established a utilization review process and notified applicant's counsel of proper submission methods.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Fax number used by applicant's counsel was a general fax number, not the designated UR fax number.
Defendant provided a specific fax number and email for UR requests in a letter dated April 21, 2020.
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.