ADJ4457963 — California WCAB decision

ADJ4457963 · September 23, 2025

February 22, 2021 Findings and Award and Order rescinded and restated; issues of selection of Dr. Goalwin, reasonableness of charges, statutory increase, interest, and filing fee deferred; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Oxnard

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; decision after reconsideration issued; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings on deferred issues

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.

LiensApplicant prevailed

The lien was filed prior to January 1, 2013, and the declaration under section 4903.8(d) was timely filed, so the lien and assignment are valid and not barred by section 4903.8(e).

LiensDeferred

The WCJ's award did not specify amounts, so the reasonableness of charges is deferred for determination at trial level.

From the decision · page 7In addition, and to the extent that defendant contests the reasonableness of the charges awarded by the WCJ, we note that the WCJ's Award provides only for reimbursement at ML-103 rates, without specifying the amounts awarded. (Finding of Fact No. 5.) In addition, the WCJ has awarded statutory increase and interest pursuant to section 4622. (Finding of Fact No. 10.) Because the amounts being awarded are not specified in the F&A, we are unable to determine the reasonableness of the award.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Lien of Angoal Medical Collections was filed on October 22, 2003, prior to January 1, 2013, and declaration under section 4903.8(d) was timely filed on November 13, 2013.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supports the validity of the lien and assignment, making them not barred by section 4903.8(e).

The record is silent and insufficient to determine if Dr. Goalwin was validly selected under Labor Code section 4060(c) as it existed in 2003.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This lack of evidence requires deferral of the issue for further development at the trial level.

From the decision · page 5Although the report itself indicates that "[t]he reason for the referral is based on the claim that the patient is experiencing emotional consequences due to workplace trauma," we observe that the record contains no other evidence responsive to the issue of whether Dr. Goalwin was validly selected pursuant to section 4060(c). (Id. at p. 1.) It is unclear from this record whether a single comprehensive medical-legal report was generated as to the claim, and whether the September 20, 2003 report in evidence is responsive to the instant claim given that the date of injury listed of May, 2000, while possibly a clerical error, does not correspond to applicant's claimed cumulative injury of April 25, 2002, through April 25, 2003. (Id. at p. 1; Minutes, at p. 2:4.) Moreover, to the extent that the parties have raised the issue of whether Dr. Goalwin was validly selected to provide a medical-legal report, the evidentiary record is silent as to whether applicant sought to nominate Dr. Goalwin as a treating physician under section 4600(a) or as a medical-legal physician under section 4060. As defendant's Petition observes, the record does not

The WCJ's award did not specify amounts for the reasonableness of charges of Angoal Medical lien.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without specific amounts, the reasonableness of charges cannot be determined and is deferred for trial level determination.

From the decision · page 7In addition, and to the extent that defendant contests the reasonableness of the charges awarded by the WCJ, we note that the WCJ's Award provides only for reimbursement at ML-103 rates, without specifying the amounts awarded. (Finding of Fact No. 5.) In addition, the WCJ has awarded statutory increase and interest pursuant to section 4622. (Finding of Fact No. 10.) Because the amounts being awarded are not specified in the F&A, we are unable to determine the reasonableness of the award.

ADJ4457963 · September 23, 2025

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