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 prevailedlumbar spine · diabetes · hypertension · psyche · upper gastrointestinal system · lower gastrointestinal system
The Board found Dr. Burstein's reports to be substantial medical evidence despite defendants' claim of false history and lack of requested records, and ordered payment to lien claimant with amended treatment amount based on fee schedule.
From the decision · page 6Defendants are correct that California Labor Code Section 4628 requires that a physician take a complete history, review and summarize medical records, and compose and draft the conclusions of any admissible report. It is also true that any decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board must be based on substantial medical evidence, and that substantial medical evidence must include a correct and germane history (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604). As defendants have pointed out, Dr. Burstein indicated in two narrative reports dated January 26, 2015 and May 8, 2015 that he wanted to review records of Dr. Chan and Antelope Valley Hospital, and the request was made with respect to the issues of diabetes and hypertension.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Burstein's reports provided expert commentary and analysis on disputed body parts and medical-legal expenses.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Board relied on these reports as substantial medical evidence to support payment to lien claimant.