ADJ21943588 · September 1, 2026

The WCJ correctly determined that the applicant was not entitled to the presumption because the claim was timely denied within the statutory period despite a typographical error in the denial notice.

From the decision · page 4section 5402(b), which states, “If liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the claim form is filed under Section 5401, the injury shall be presumed compensable under this division. The presumption of this subdivision is rebuttable only by evidence discovered subsequent to the 90-day period.” Preliminarily, we note that applicant seeks relief from the Board by petitioning for reconsideration and in the alternative for removal. Pursuant to section 5900, the Board only has jurisdiction to grant reconsideration from a “final order, decision, or award.” In Maranian v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650], it was held that a ruling regarding the applicability of the section 5402(b) presumption is “final” for purposes of section 5900, and thus properly raised by way of a petition for reconsideration. We therefore consider the merits of applicant’s contentions as a petition for reconsideration. Turning to the merits, we do not find the fact that two numbers were transposed in an apparent typographical error to invalidate the denial. We note that Administrative Rule 9812 does not require the date of injury to be listed in a Notice of Denial. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9812, subd.

The denial notice was not defective despite a typographical error, and the orthopedic QME panel requested by defendant was valid. The applicant failed to raise the issue properly or provide evidence to support a chiropractic panel request.

From the decision · page 5Applicant also contends that because the notice of denial was defective, the defective notice invalidates the QME panel. As noted above, a denial notice is not required to contain a date of injury (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9812, subd. (g)) and the transposition of “0” and “3” was insufficient to render the notice invalid, especially given the other identifying information and the fact that no evidence was presented that there was any other outstanding claim between the parties. Furthermore, a decision issued by the Appeals Board may address a hybrid of both threshold and interlocutory issues. If a party challenges a hybrid decision, the petition seeking relief is treated as a petition for reconsideration because the decision resolves a threshold issue. Here, as noted above, the determination that the section 5402(b) presumption did not apply is a final order. However, when interlocutory orders are being challenged, we evaluate these issues under the removal standard. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) We note that orders of the WCAB regarding development of the record are interlocutory in nature.

Applicant’s counsel used the denial letter as evidence to obtain chiropractic QME panel within statutory period

Favours Defendant prevailed

Shows applicant knew claim was denied timely, undermining presumption claim

From the decision · page 41433-1434.) Similarly, in this matter, on February 3, 2026, within 90 days of the filing of the DWC-1 claim form, applicant’s counsel used the January 9, 2026 denial letter as supporting documentation to obtain a chiropractic QME panel. Thus, by February 3, 2026, within the statutory time period, applicant clearly knew the claim had been denied. We further note that applicant claims in the Petition that it objected to defendant’s panel request and that defendant was required to issue a corrected notice. However, since applicant did not place any objection into the evidentiary record, we are unable to evaluate this argument. In any

Denial of claim was timely within 90 days despite typographical error in date on denial notice

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supports denial of presumption of liability under Labor Code section 5402(b)

From the decision · page 4(g).) There was no allegation or evidence that applicant claimed multiple industrial injuries with this employer or any other reason for applicant to believe that the denial was for another claim. In any case, the relevant inquiry in determining the applicability of the Labor Code section 5402(b) presumption is whether defendant rejected the claim within the statutory period, not the timing or format of the notice to the applicant that the claim was rejected. (Rodriguez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1432-1433 [59 Cal.Comp.Cases 857].) We note that in Rodriguez, an oral denial by defendant recorded by applicant’s counsel in a declaration of readiness to proceed was relied upon by the court as evidence that a claim had been timely denied for purposes of the presumption. (Id. at pp.

No evidence applicant properly objected to orthopedic QME panel or raised issue with Medical Director or trial level

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supports validity of defendant’s requested orthopedic QME panel

Labor Code section 5402(b)

Labor Code section 5402(b) presumption of liability

Determines presumption applies if claim not denied within 90 days of filing

From the decision · page 4section 5402(b), which states, “If liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the claim form is filed under Section 5401, the injury shall be presumed compensable under this division. The presumption of this subdivision is rebuttable only by evidence discovered subsequent to the 90-day period.” Preliminarily, we note that applicant seeks relief from the Board by petitioning for reconsideration and in the alternative for removal. Pursuant to section 5900, the Board only has jurisdiction to grant reconsideration from a “final order, decision, or award.” In Maranian v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650], it was held that a ruling regarding the applicability of the section 5402(b) presumption is “final” for purposes of section 5900, and thus properly raised by way of a petition for reconsideration. We therefore consider the merits of applicant’s contentions as a petition for reconsideration. Turning to the merits, we do not find the fact that two numbers were transposed in an apparent typographical error to invalidate the denial. We note that Administrative Rule 9812 does not require the date of injury to be listed in a Notice of Denial. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9812, subd.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9812(g)

Notice of Denial requirements

Denial notice not required to contain date of injury; typographical errors do not invalidate notice

From the decision · page 5Applicant also contends that because the notice of denial was defective, the defective notice invalidates the QME panel. As noted above, a denial notice is not required to contain a date of injury (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9812, subd. (g)) and the transposition of “0” and “3” was insufficient to render the notice invalid, especially given the other identifying information and the fact that no evidence was presented that there was any other outstanding claim between the parties. Furthermore, a decision issued by the Appeals Board may address a hybrid of both threshold and interlocutory issues. If a party challenges a hybrid decision, the petition seeking relief is treated as a petition for reconsideration because the decision resolves a threshold issue. Here, as noted above, the determination that the section 5402(b) presumption did not apply is a final order. However, when interlocutory orders are being challenged, we evaluate these issues under the removal standard. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) We note that orders of the WCAB regarding development of the record are interlocutory in nature.

Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658

Removal standard for interlocutory orders

Removal requires significant prejudice or irreparable harm; not met here

Applicant’s counsel used the January 9, 2026 denial letter as supporting documentation to obtain a chiropractic QME panel within the statutory period, showing knowledge of claim denial.

From the decision · page 41433-1434.) Similarly, in this matter, on February 3, 2026, within 90 days of the filing of the DWC-1 claim form, applicant’s counsel used the January 9, 2026 denial letter as supporting documentation to obtain a chiropractic QME panel. Thus, by February 3, 2026, within the statutory time period, applicant clearly knew the claim had been denied. We further note that applicant claims in the Petition that it objected to defendant’s panel request and that defendant was required to issue a corrected notice. However, since applicant did not place any objection into the evidentiary record, we are unable to evaluate this argument. In any