What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant's selection of Centre for Neuro Skills as his primary treating physician from the carrier's MPN was valid and that the defendant is obligated to authorize treatment.
Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order issued on September 8, 2025, which was timely acted upon by the Appeals Board on December 8, 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 WCJ found and the Appeals Board upheld that the applicant validly selected CNS as his PTP from the carrier's MPN on 6/23/2025, when CNS was still on the MPN. The defendant's removal of CNS from the MPN after that date does not retroactively invalidate the selection or deny treatment.
From the decision · page 6The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact and Orders on 9/8/2025 finding that the selection made by Applicant on 6/23/2025 to use CNS as his primary treating physician was valid in that CNS was part of the carrier's MPN at the time of selection.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Centre for Neuro Skills was on the carrier's approved MPN on 6/23/2025 when the applicant selected it as PTP.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established the validity of the applicant's selection of CNS as his primary treating physician.
From the decision · page 6Cal. Code of Regs. sec. 9767.6 allows the injured employee to select a treating physician from the MPN. Ex. L seems to verify that CNS was on the approved MPN on or about 6/23/2025 when Applicant requested authorization. The request for CNS approval was on 6/23/2025, and Defendant informed Applicant on 6/27/2025 that they were no longer on the MPN.
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.
Dr. Koh was the primary treating physician selected by the applicant as part of the Centre for Neuro Skills.
From the decision · page 5Applicant sustained an admitted injury including head injuries on 6/13/2023. Based on the history given to the QME it appears that he treated with a chiropractor for at least 18 months. Finally, a referral was made to Dr. Timothy Lo in neurology as QME. He saw the patient on 5/2/2025. He indicated that Applicant was not P&S and had headaches and post traumatic concussion syndrome. He recommended that Applicant be referred to the Centre for Neuro Skills (CNS) for treatment (Ex. X). On 5/30/2025 Applicant asked Defendant to pick up treatment with the Centre for Neuro Skills as recommended by the QME report from Dr. Lo (Ex. 6). Ex. L shows that Centre for Neuro Skills was on the approved MPN list for Omaha National Ins. Co.1 On or about a 6/23 a formal LC sec. [4600] letter was dispatched to Defendants seeking the same change to Dr. Koh/Centre for Neuro Skills (Ex. 1).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code of Regs. sec. 9767.6
Cal. Code of Regs. sec. 9767.6 allows injured employees to select a treating physician from the MPN.
The regulation was applied to confirm the validity of the applicant's selection of CNS as PTP from the MPN on 6/23/2025.
From the decision · page 6Cal. Code of Regs. sec. 9767.6 allows the injured employee to select a treating physician from the MPN. Ex. L seems to verify that CNS was on the approved MPN on or about 6/23/2025 when Applicant requested authorization. The request for CNS approval was on 6/23/2025, and Defendant informed Applicant on 6/27/2025 that they were no longer on the MPN.
Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4616.2(d)
Continuity of Care Policy under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4616.2(d) and Cal. Code of Regs. sec. 9767.10 applies if the selected physician is later removed from the MPN.
The policy was noted but found not to impact the decision as it concerns future changes, not retroactive denial.
From the decision · page 6Petitioners are essentially correct. The Petitioner agrees that Applicant selected his treating physician from the carrier's approved MPN on 6/23/2025, and the selected physician or clinic was on the MPN at the time.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The carrier's approved MPN list included Centre for Neuro Skills on 6/23/2025 when the applicant selected it as PTP.
From the decision · page 6Cal. Code of Regs. sec. 9767.6 allows the injured employee to select a treating physician from the MPN. Ex. L seems to verify that CNS was on the approved MPN on or about 6/23/2025 when Applicant requested authorization. The request for CNS approval was on 6/23/2025, and Defendant informed Applicant on 6/27/2025 that they were no longer on the MPN.
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.