What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimant Woodland Psyche Center was denied by the WCAB panel after review of the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision dated 06/04/2025.
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 lien claimant Woodland Psyche Center failed to prove injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) due to insufficient medical evidence and failure to comply with regulatory requirements.
From the decision · page 12Exhibit four (4) is an initial office consultation report by Judith Schwafel, Ph.D. The report discussed her problems at work and gave her diagnoses. The doctor stated the following: The events of injury arising from work were predominantly causative of injury to the psyche. The doctor also said the following: In order to provide a more definitive analysis of the percentages of causation of psyche injury, there should be a review of relevant personnel records, medical records, and any other investigative or discovery records. This could be provided in an initial comprehensive medical-legal evaluation upon the request by a party.
The lien claimant was given opportunity to participate and present evidence; service of documents was proper and complied with regulations, so no due process violation occurred.
From the decision · page 7DUE PROCESS Petitioner argues it was denied due process. The lien claimant was given every opportunity to participate, present evidence, and even admitted evidence offered (Exhibits 1-9). Lien claimant objected to evidence offered by defendant in what appeared to be a tactic in response to defense objections to some of lien claimant's evidence. In the petition the lien claimant stated that the WCJ deprived the lien claimant of opportunity to review or object in a meaningful way to defense exhibits A and D-I. It should be
The medical-legal reports were not obtained or requested for proving a contested claim and did not comply with regulatory requirements, thus not admissible for medical-legal charges.
From the decision · page 8MEDICAL-LEGAL CHARGES Petitioner has argued that the reporting of the lien claimant is capable of proving an industrial injury and is a medical-legal report, and referred to CCR 9397(H). It appears that lien claimant is referring to 9793(h). It does not comply with this section as it was not obtained and requested by a party for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim. The request by applicant attorney was for treatment. There was no contested claim until after denial on June 13, 2022, and after that date none of the reports from petitioner (5 & 6) are capable of proving or disproving a disputed fact or proving injury. The reporting by the lien claimant does not comply with California Code of Regulations 9793(h). The exhibits from petitioner did not comply with Labor Code 4628 in that there was not a complete history, prior medical records were not summarized, and according to Labor Code 4628(e), failure to comply with requirements of this section make the report inadmissible.
Since injury AOE/COE was not proven, treatment charges including non-MPN treatment prior to denial are not compensable.
From the decision · page 14injury AOE/COE and therefore any treatment charges would not be compensable. Since this is the case, it is unnecessary to discuss whether non-MPN treatment prior to denial notice if compensable. If it was necessary, the treatment from for the first two dates of treatment on 05/06/2022 and 06/09/2022 would not be compensable as the defendant satisfied Labor Code 4600 through its MPN in offering treatment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant Woodland Psyche Center failed to prove injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant the lien claimant could not recover on the lien and treatment charges were not compensable.
From the decision · page 13The employer's liability was not determined until this decision. Liability was contested up until the Compromise and Release was filed and approved on 03/21/2023. It is found herein that the Woodland Psyche Center did not carry the burden of proving injury AOE/COE. Therefore, since the lien claimant failed to prove injury AOE/COE it is unnecessary to prove the elements of reasonableness of treatment.
Proper service of the Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2025, provided actual notice to parties of case transmission to Appeals Board.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported denial of due process claim and upheld procedural fairness.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on June 25, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 25, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on June 25, 2025.
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.
Initial consultation report stated work events were predominantly causative of psyche injury but lacked definitive causation analysis and was for treatment, not claim proof.
Report lacked substantial evidence on causation and did not comply with regulatory requirements for medical-legal reports.
From the decision · page 12Exhibit four (4) is an initial office consultation report by Judith Schwafel, Ph.D. The report discussed her problems at work and gave her diagnoses. The doctor stated the following: The events of injury arising from work were predominantly causative of injury to the psyche. The doctor also said the following: In order to provide a more definitive analysis of the percentages of causation of psyche injury, there should be a review of relevant personnel records, medical records, and any other investigative or discovery records. This could be provided in an initial comprehensive medical-legal evaluation upon the request by a party.
Designated treating physician but reporting did not prove injury causation or comply with medical-legal standards.
Reporting was for treatment and not for proving claim; did not comply with medical-legal requirements.
From the decision · page 12Exhibit four (4) is an initial office consultation report by Judith Schwafel, Ph.D. The report discussed her problems at work and gave her diagnoses. The doctor stated the following: The events of injury arising from work were predominantly causative of injury to the psyche. The doctor also said the following: In order to provide a more definitive analysis of the percentages of causation of psyche injury, there should be a review of relevant personnel records, medical records, and any other investigative or discovery records. This could be provided in an initial comprehensive medical-legal evaluation upon the request by a party.
Noted as a designated physician in the case but no substantial opinion on causation was credited.
From the decision · page 13The applicant was sent a notice of an authorization of appointment with Dr. Gregory Bouyer on April 29, 2022 (Exhibit D). The defendant objected to applicant treating with Dr. Thomas Curtis (who must have been at Woodland Psyche Center) based on the provider being outside the medical provider network (Exhibit E). Another letter was sent to applicant attorney on 05/24/2022 (Exhibit F).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 5705
Burden of proof on party holding affirmative
Lien claimant has burden to prove injury AOE/COE and reasonableness of charges.
From the decision · page 11INJURY ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to Labor Code 5705, "The burden of proof rests upon the party or lien
Labor Code 3202.5
Preponderance of the evidence
Lien claimant must prove all elements of lien by preponderance of evidence.
From the decision · page 11Labor Code 3202.5 requires all parties and lien claimants to meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a "preponderance of the evidence." This means "evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth."
California Code of Regulations 9793(h)
Medical-legal report requirements
Medical-legal reports must be requested by a party for proving or disproving contested claim to be admissible.
From the decision · page 8MEDICAL-LEGAL CHARGES Petitioner has argued that the reporting of the lien claimant is capable of proving an industrial injury and is a medical-legal report, and referred to CCR 9397(H). It appears that lien claimant is referring to 9793(h). It does not comply with this section as it was not obtained and requested by a party for the purpose of proving or disproving a contested claim. The request by applicant attorney was for treatment. There was no contested claim until after denial on June 13, 2022, and after that date none of the reports from petitioner (5 & 6) are capable of proving or disproving a disputed fact or proving injury. The reporting by the lien claimant does not comply with California Code of Regulations 9793(h). The exhibits from petitioner did not comply with Labor Code 4628 in that there was not a complete history, prior medical records were not summarized, and according to Labor Code 4628(e), failure to comply with requirements of this section make the report inadmissible.
California Evidence Code 641
Proper service presumption
A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed received in ordinary course of mail.
From the decision · page 8Here it is evident that the lien claimant was served pursuant to Proof of Service dated December 9, 2024 (EAMS Doc ID 55314932). Pursuant to California Evidence Code 641: A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail. Further, it appears that the defendant complied with CCR 10625.
California Code of Regulations 10625
Service compliance
Defendant complied with service regulations for evidence.
From the decision · page 8Here it is evident that the lien claimant was served pursuant to Proof of Service dated December 9, 2024 (EAMS Doc ID 55314932). Pursuant to California Evidence Code 641: A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail. Further, it appears that the defendant complied with CCR 10625.
Labor Code 4600
Labor Code 4600
Employer satisfied treatment offer requirements through Medical Provider Network.
From the decision · page 14injury AOE/COE and therefore any treatment charges would not be compensable. Since this is the case, it is unnecessary to discuss whether non-MPN treatment prior to denial notice if compensable. If it was necessary, the treatment from for the first two dates of treatment on 05/06/2022 and 06/09/2022 would not be compensable as the defendant satisfied Labor Code 4600 through its MPN in offering treatment.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Proper service of the Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2025, providing actual notice to parties of case transmission to Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on June 25, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 25, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on June 25, 2025.
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.