What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimant The Prescription Center, seeking review of the 06/13/2022 Findings and Order disallowing its lien for self-procured medications.
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.
LiensDefendant prevailedback · lower extremities · psyche
The lien claimant did not meet its burden of proof to establish that the treatment was medically reasonable and necessary, and new issues raised in the petition were waived for not being raised at trial.
From the decision · page 1A lien claimant must establish that the treatment it provided was medically reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the applicant from the effects of the industrial injury. (Torres v. AJC Sandblasting (2012) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 1113, 1121 (Appeals Board en banc).) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we agree that lien claimant did not meet its burden of proof. Moreover, to the extent lien claimant raises new issues in the current Petition for Reconsideration that were not raised at trial, these issues are waived. An issue that is not raised at the first opportunity at which it may properly be raised is waived. (Lab. Code, § 5502(e)(3), see also Gould v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1059 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 157], Griffith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1260 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 145].)