What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; August 3, 2022 Findings of Fact affirmed
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant from the WCJ's August 1, 2022 Findings and Order and Opinion on 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.
Medical treatment / UR / IMRDefendant prevailedcervical spine · lumbar spine · left shoulder · left upper extremity
The WCJ found the presumption of proper mailing and receipt of the authorization letter unrebutted, relying on proof of service and testimonial evidence, thus denying the claim of denial of care.
From the decision · page 4parties is an alleged failure of defendants to provide the authorization letter upon request and follow-up. However, the presumption of proper service is based on the accepted concept that, as Evidence Code § 641 indicates, a letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received. Further, a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1963, par. 20, Idaho Maryland Mines Corp. v. Industrial Acci. Com,, 24 Cal.Comp.Cases 238, 1959 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 189, 174 Cal.App.2d 693, 345 P.2d 109.) Once there is a production of the proper proof of service, the burden will shift to the opposing party to show the contrary. (See Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 CCC 1803, 1817; Castro v. WCAB (1996) 61 CCC 1460; Catalan v. WCAB (1988) 53 CCC 191).