What the panel ordered
The Board rescinded the WCJ's December 6, 2022 Findings and Order and substituted a new order finding injury on August 5, 2014, and that defendant unreasonably denied medical treatment by refusing to authorize treatment with Dr. David Patterson; applicant entitled to designate Dr. Patterson at Casa Colina as primary treating physician.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's December 6, 2022 Findings and Order denying denial of medical treatment claim; WCJ's report recommended denial of reconsideration; the Board granted reconsideration to study factual and legal issues further.
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 Board found that defendant's refusal to authorize treatment with Dr. Patterson, a physician employed by Casa Colina listed in the MPN, constituted an unreasonable denial of medical treatment under Labor Code section 4600 and related regulations and precedent cases Rivas and Montiel.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on December 6, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE)1 to various body parts; and that defendant did not deny medical treatment to applicant.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant listed Casa Colina as an approved facility in its MPN but omitted individual physicians including Dr. Patterson from the directory.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This omission led defendant to refuse authorization for treatment with Dr. Patterson, which the Board found improper and a denial of medical treatment.
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. Patterson was the designated primary treating physician applicant sought to be authorized to treat him, but defendant refused authorization based on MPN listing omission, which the Board found improper.
Dr. Patterson is employed by Casa Colina, an approved MPN facility, and thus authorized under AD Rule 9767.5.1(a) and related precedent.
Dr. Wogensen was cited in precedent Rivas as a physician employed by Casa Colina whose designation as primary treating physician was authorized despite not being individually listed in the MPN directory.
Precedent in Rivas supports that physicians employed by an MPN-listed facility are authorized providers even if not individually listed.
From the decision · page 5and any subsequent physicians shall be based on the physician's specialty or recognized expertise in treating the particular injury or condition in question. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 9767.6(e).) In Rivas, the injured employee sustained an industrial injury to the head and brain and subsequently designated Kenneth K. Wogensen, M.D., employed by Casa Colina, as primary treating physician. Defendant denied authorization because Dr. Wogensen did not appear as an individual physician within the network directory. The Appeals Board rejected defendant's argument, reasoning that, under section 4616(a)(3) and AD Rule 9767.5.1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9767.5.1), medical groups may be members of MPN and may employ services of physicians who do not register individually with MPN. (Rivas, supra, 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS at p. 13.) The Board emphasized that the evidence demonstrated Dr.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4600
Labor Code section 4600 requires employers to provide necessary medical treatment for industrial injuries; failure to do so constitutes denial of medical treatment.
Defendant's refusal to authorize treatment with Dr. Patterson was found to violate this statute.
From the decision · page 3Section 4600(a) provides: Medical, surgical,... and hospital treatment,... that is reasonably required to cure or relieve the injured worker from the effects of the worker's injury shall be provided by the employer. In the case of the employer's neglect or refusal reasonably to do so, the employer is liable for the reasonable expense incurred by or on behalf of the employee in providing treatment. (Lab. Code, § 4600, bold and italics added for emphasis.) If an employer has established an MPN, the employer is only liable for treatment by a physician from within its MPN. (Lab. Code, § 4600(c), 4616 et seq.) However, if the employer neglects or refuses to provide reasonably necessary medical treatment, whether through an MPN or otherwise, then an employee may self-procure medical treatment at the employer's expense. (Lab.
AD Rule 9767.6(e)
AD Rule 9767.6(e) allows employees to select a treating physician from an MPN, even if the physician is not individually listed, if the physician is employed by an MPN-listed facility.
Applicant's selection of Dr. Patterson was authorized under this rule despite omission from the MPN directory.
From the decision · page 4AD Rule 9767.6(e) clearly provides employees with the right to designate who will treat them within an MPN:
AD Rule 9767.5.1(a)
AD Rule 9767.5.1(a) provides that physicians employed by an MPN-listed medical group are authorized providers without individual registration.
Dr. Patterson, as an employee of Casa Colina, is authorized under this rule.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant refused to authorize treatment with Dr. Patterson despite Casa Colina being listed in the MPN as an approved facility.
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.