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 WCJ found the RFAs were timely non-certified, but the petitioner contended the Utilization Reviews were untimely; the parties ultimately resolved the dispute by stipulation, which the WCAB approved.
From the decision · page 1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 30, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that the RFA for 84 hours a week of home health assistance dated January 15, 2019 was timely non-certified as was the September 7, 2020 RFA, and that the Patterson decision did not apply to this case to authorize ongoing services pursuant to a Stipulated Agreement by the parties dated July 10, 2018.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours neutral
This settlement resolved the dispute over the timeliness and certification of the Requests for Authorization for home health care services, leading to the WCAB's approval and rescission of the prior WCJ decision.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Utilization Review timeliness requirements under California Labor Code
The WCJ and WCAB considered whether the Utilization Reviews properly addressed the Requests for Authorization (RFAs) and their timeliness.
From the decision · page 1applicant, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on April 30, 2021. In that decision, the WCJ found that the RFA for 84 hours a week of home health assistance dated January 15, 2019 was timely non-certified as was the September 7, 2020 RFA, and that the Patterson decision did not apply to this case to authorize ongoing services pursuant to a Stipulated Agreement by the parties dated July 10, 2018.
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.