What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant United Wisconsin Insurance Company challenging lien payment award; denied for failure to raise issue at trial
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 petition for reconsideration was denied because the issue of non-compliance with Labor Code sections 4903.05 and 4903.8 was not raised at trial and thus waived.
From the decision · page 5However, these contentions as asserted in Defendant's petition for reconsideration were not raised as issues to be addressed during the trial. In furtherance of judicial economy, an issue not raised at trial is considered waived. Ingram Micro v WCAB (Ordonez), 64 CCC 100 (1998).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant did not raise non-compliance with Labor Code sections 4903.05 and 4903.8 at trial
Favours Applicant prevailed
Failure to raise the issue at trial resulted in waiver and denial of petition for reconsideration
From the decision · page 5However, these contentions as asserted in Defendant's petition for reconsideration were not raised as issues to be addressed during the trial. In furtherance of judicial economy, an issue not raised at trial is considered waived. Ingram Micro v WCAB (Ordonez), 64 CCC 100 (1998).
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Diagnosed major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and insomnia; opined work events were predominant cause of psychiatric condition; treatment was reasonable and necessary; 80% of condition caused by work stress and harassment.
His medical-legal reports and treatment were found reasonable and necessary and supported the lien claim.
From the decision · page 3As Applicant's elected treating physician [Ex 11] Dr. Flores also prepared a Comprehensive Medical-Legal Evaluation Report dated 11/20/19 [Ex 4]. In it, he noted the circumstances giving rise to Applicant's claim [Ex 4, P3-6], including unwanted touching by her supervisor, threats of severe bodily harm, and the obtaining of a restraining order by Applicant for protection [Ex 4, P6]. He opined that the events at work were a predominant cause of her psychiatric condition and treatment was required [Ex 4, P10]. Treatment ensued until June 2021 [Ex 2, P2-8; Ex 10] after which a final medical-legal report was issued indicating his opinion that 80% of the cause of Applicant's condition and disability was the result of work stress and harassment, as well as threats of physical harm and death from her supervisor [Ex 3, P27]. He also discussed periods of temporary disability, impairment, apportionment and need for further treatment [Ex 3, P28-30].
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Ingram Micro v WCAB (Ordonez), 64 CCC 100 (1998)
Issues not raised at trial are considered waived and cannot be raised on reconsideration
Defendant's petition raised issues not raised at trial, so petition was denied
From the decision · page 5However, these contentions as asserted in Defendant's petition for reconsideration were not raised as issues to be addressed during the trial. In furtherance of judicial economy, an issue not raised at trial is considered waived. Ingram Micro v WCAB (Ordonez), 64 CCC 100 (1998).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Failure to raise non-compliance with Labor Code sections 4903.05 and 4903.8 at trial
From the decision · page 5However, these contentions as asserted in Defendant's petition for reconsideration were not raised as issues to be addressed during the trial. In furtherance of judicial economy, an issue not raised at trial is considered waived. Ingram Micro v WCAB (Ordonez), 64 CCC 100 (1998).
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.