What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed and denied by the Appeals Board after review of the WCJ's Report and Recommendation.
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 and Appeals Board found no jurisdiction over the Cost Petition because the petitioner failed to comply with the required second bill review request within 90 days and did not meet the procedural requirements, leading to dismissal of the petition.
From the decision · page 4There was no itemization of just how much time this service took or where it took place. The Cost Petition was tried on 11/25/2024. The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact on 12/10/2024 dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction in that the Cost Petitioner never requested a second bill review as set forth in sec. 4602(b)(2).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Cost Petitioner failed to file a timely and compliant second bill review request within 90 days of the Explanation of Review.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure deprived the WCJ of jurisdiction to award further benefits, leading to dismissal of the petition.
From the decision · page 4There was no itemization of just how much time this service took or where it took place. The Cost Petition was tried on 11/25/2024. The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact on 12/10/2024 dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction in that the Cost Petitioner never requested a second bill review as set forth in sec. 4602(b)(2).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations
Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4622(b)(2) and Cal. Code of Regs. sec. 9792.5.5(e)
These provisions require a Cost Petitioner to file a request for second bill review within 90 days and comply with prescribed forms, which the petitioner failed to do, resulting in lack of jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 4There was no itemization of just how much time this service took or where it took place. The Cost Petition was tried on 11/25/2024. The undersigned issued a Findings of Fact on 12/10/2024 dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction in that the Cost Petitioner never requested a second bill review as set forth in sec. 4602(b)(2).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The Cost Petitioner did not comply with the second bill review request requirements and failed to provide timely and proper documentation.
From the decision · page 5Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4622(b) (1) and Cal. Code of Regs. sec. 9792.5.5(b) require the Cost Petitioner to file a request for second bill review within 90 days from the receipt of the EOR. As stated in sec. 9792.5.5(d) therein the cost petitioner is required to provide specific information set forth therein and to use a prescribed form.
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.