ADJ10298755 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board found the Petition for Reconsideration was timely filed and granted it to allow further review of the merits and the entire record, deferring final decision.

From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on April 1, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, May 31, 2026. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, June 1, 2026. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)1. This decision is issued by or on Monday, June 1, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code 5909

Petition for Reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board

The Appeals Board acted on the petition within the 60-day period as required by statute.

From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on April 1, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, May 31, 2026. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, June 1, 2026. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)1. This decision is issued by or on Monday, June 1, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

Labor Code 4600, 4610; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sandhagen) (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230

Employer must provide reasonable medical treatment to cure or relieve effects of industrial injury; UR decisions must be timely; other disputes resolved through IMR

Relevant to the underlying dispute about UR denial and medical treatment continuation.

From the decision · page 4Section 4600 requires the employer to provide reasonable medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of the industrial injury. (Lab. Code, § 4600(a).) An employers' review of an employees' medical treatment requests are governed solely by UR. (Lab. Code, § 4610, 4610.5; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sandhagen) (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230, 236 [73 Cal.Comp.Cases 981].) Section 4610 provides time limits within which a UR decision must be made by the employer. These time limits are mandatory. Every employer is required to participate in UR, for consideration of a treating physician's request for authorization of medical treatment. (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sandhagen) (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230 [73 Cal.Comp.Cases 981]. When there is a challenge to the validity of a UR decision, the only issue which the Appeals Board may address is the legal issue regarding the timeliness of the UR decision. All other disputes regarding a UR decision must be resolved through IMR. (Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1298 (Appeals Board en banc).)

ADJ10298755 · June 1, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

About this page