What the panel ordered
The WCAB rescinded the December 31, 2024 Findings and Orders and approved the Stipulation Re Settlement of Lien filed on August 8, 2025.
Lien claimant Medland Medical petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on December 31, 2024, regarding reimbursement for medical treatment and medical-legal reporting costs.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 28, 2025.
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 WCAB found the evidentiary record inadequate to determine the value of medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial but approved the settlement stipulation for lien reimbursement.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Medland Medical (lien claimant) petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 31, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a landscaper from April 17, 2021 to April 17, 2022, sustained industrial injury to his bilateral upper extremities. The WCJ also found, in relevant part, that lien claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of medical treatment and medical-legal reporting costs for services rendered prior to the denial of the claim on January 13, 2023, and that lien claimant is entitled to payment for medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial, but that the evidentiary record was inadequate to determine the value of medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained industrial injury to bilateral upper extremities while employed as landscaper from April 17, 2021 to April 17, 2022.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established the basis for the lien claimant's petition for reimbursement of medical treatment costs.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Medland Medical (lien claimant) petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 31, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a landscaper from April 17, 2021 to April 17, 2022, sustained industrial injury to his bilateral upper extremities. The WCJ also found, in relevant part, that lien claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of medical treatment and medical-legal reporting costs for services rendered prior to the denial of the claim on January 13, 2023, and that lien claimant is entitled to payment for medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial, but that the evidentiary record was inadequate to determine the value of medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial.
The evidentiary record was inadequate to determine the value of medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial on January 13, 2023.
Favours neutral
This lack of evidence affected the WCJ's original findings and led to reconsideration and settlement approval.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Medland Medical (lien claimant) petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on December 31, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a landscaper from April 17, 2021 to April 17, 2022, sustained industrial injury to his bilateral upper extremities. The WCJ also found, in relevant part, that lien claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of medical treatment and medical-legal reporting costs for services rendered prior to the denial of the claim on January 13, 2023, and that lien claimant is entitled to payment for medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial, but that the evidentiary record was inadequate to determine the value of medical treatment services rendered after the claim denial.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 5402(c)
Lien claimant contended entitlement to reimbursement during the delay period pursuant to this statute.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant contends that it is entitled to reimbursement during the delay period pursuant to Labor Code section 5402(c) because the employer failed to provide notice of its medical provider network and failed to comply with its statutory treatment and notice obligations following receipt of notice of applicant's claimed injury. Lien claimant also contends the reporting of Omid Haghighinia, D.C., is a valid medical-legal expense because the reporting addressed the compensability of a disputed claim.
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.