What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's Findings of Fact except it amended Finding of Fact 4 to remove the reference to employment. The WCAB found that lien claimant did not meet its burden to prove the injury was AOE/COE and that the treatment was reasonable and necessary. The issue of sanctions was deferred and moot.
Petition for Reconsideration was filed by lien claimant Sidhu Chiropractic Inc. to challenge the WCJ's Findings of Fact issued on November 22, 2019. The WCJ had found that lien claimant failed to prove employment, injury AOE/COE, and reasonableness of treatment. The WCJ deferred sanctions issue. The WCJ recommended denial of the Petition for Reconsideration.
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.
Lien claimant failed to prove the injury was industrially related and arising out of and in the course of employment.
From the decision · page 3shoes of the injured employee and the lien claimant must prove by preponderance of the evidence all of the elements necessary to the establishment of its lien. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705; Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588, 1592 (Appeals Board en banc).) A lien claimant medical provider's burden of proof includes the burden of showing that the medical treatment provided was "reasonably required to cure or relieve" the injured worker from the effects of an industrial injury. (Lab. Code, § 4600(a); Williams v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 618 [31 Cal.Comp.Cases 186]; Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 789 [59 Cal.Comp.Cases 461].)