What the panel ordered
Joint Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Joint Findings and Order regarding medical treatment liens. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the order, and remanded for further proceedings.
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's reliance on Dr. Paul's March 10, 2009 report was insufficient to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the medical treatment under the MTUS or to rebut the MTUS by a preponderance of scientific evidence. The record did not clearly support the liens as reasonable and necessary, and further proceedings are required.
From the decision · page 6Here, the WCJ found that Dr. Paul's March 10, 2009 Report satisfied lien claimants' burden of proof that their medical treatments were reasonable and necessary. Based on the record before us, it is not entirely clear if this report satisfies either lien claimant's burden of proof. A review of Dr. Paul's March 10, 2009 Report reveals no mention of the MTUS, and Dr. Paul did not present "a preponderance of scientific evidence" to justify a variance from treatment per the MTUS. Additionally, Dr. Paul did not review any medical records for his March 10, 2009 report, and he did not discuss any of applicant's prior medical treatment. Thus, it is unclear how Dr. Paul's March 10, 2009 report could be used to evaluate or justify applicant's medical treatment prior to March 10, 2009, as reasonable and necessary. Furthermore, it is unclear how Dr. Paul's report of March 10, 2009, may be the basis for the reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment