What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted, Joint Findings and Orders rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
Petition for Reconsideration granted, Joint Findings and Orders rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
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 initially found lien claimants did not meet burden of proof for reasonable medical treatment, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 5On August 18, 2025, the WCJ issued a Joint Findings & Orders and Opinion on Decision. As relevant herein, the WCJ found that none of the lien claimants met their burden of proof to recover on their liens.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimants did not provide evidence that medical treatment services complied with MTUS guidelines, an essential element of their burden of proof.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of evidence led to the WCJ's initial finding that lien claimants did not meet their burden to prove reasonableness and necessity of treatment.
From the decision · page 9The medical treatment services provided at COSC consisted of lumbar ACEOM guidelines epidural steroid injections and lumbar facet joint blocks requested and performed by Marina Russman M.D. on 11/15/12 and 1/24/13. Be that as it may, Lien Claimant did not provide any evidence that the medical treatment services provided were in accordance with the MTUS. Providing such evidence is an essential element of Lien Claimant's burden of proof. Thus, Lien Claimant did not meet its burden to prove that the medical treatment services it provided were reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of said injury or injuries.
AME Dr. Danzig opined that lumbar epidural steroid injections provided by Dr. Russman were very helpful and recommended further treatment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Dr. Danzig's opinion supported the reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment, favoring reconsideration and further proceedings.
From the decision · page 10Here, applicant's injuries occurred prior to 2013, and since AME Dr. Danzig was appointed and evaluated applicant on two occasions, it was his role to comment on the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment applicant received. In his March 12, 2013 report Dr. Danzig opines, "The patient also treated with Dr. Marina Rasmussmen [sic]. The patient had two lumbar epidural steroid injections which were very helpful." (Exhibit 19, 3/12/2013, p. 7.) Dr. Danzig also issued a report on June 11, 2014, where he further opined,
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 low back pain, right and left wrist tendinitis, possible carpal tunnel syndrome; opined injuries were sustained during employment; noted MRI evidence of disc herniation; recommended possible further treatment including surgery; apportioned disability mostly to cumulative trauma injury; found medical treatment reasonable and necessary including lumbar epidural steroid injections.
Dr. Danzig's reports were relied upon to assess the reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment liens.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND In ADJ8166020, applicant claimed that while employed by defendant as a certified nursing assistant on May 2, 2008, she sustained injury to her arms, fingers, back, and shoulders arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) when she was attacked by a patient. In ADJ8371382, while employed as a certified nursing assistant by defendant on November 24, 2011, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her right hand and right wrist and claims to have sustained injury to her low back. In ADJ8371384, while employed as a certified nursing assistant by defendant during the period from April 26, 2011 to April 26, 2012, applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her right hand, right wrist, left hand, left wrist, and low back. On March 6, 2013, agreed medical evaluator (AME) Larry A. Danzig, M.D., examined applicant for her claimed injuries, and on March 12, 2013, he issued a report. (Exhibit 19, 3/12/2013.) Dr. Danzig diagnosed applicant with "Low back pain of the sprain/strain variety; Right wrist tendinitis, rule out carpal tunnel syndrome; Left wrist tendinitis, rule out carpal tunnel syndrome." (Id., p. 34.) With respect to causation, he stated that:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4600
Employer must provide medical treatment reasonably required to cure or relieve effects of industrial injury.
Applied to assess lien claimants' burden of proof for medical treatment liens.
From the decision · page 7Here, Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center, Technical Surgery Support, California Urgent Care, Precision Interpreting, ABCDE Transportation, and Reliable Medical Supply are "medical treatment liens." Section 4600(a) requires the employer to provide medical treatment and services to an industrially related injured employee:
Labor Code section 4610
Medical treatment must comply with MTUS guidelines and section 4610 requirements.
Applied to evaluate compliance of medical treatment services with regulatory standards.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimants contend that they met their burden of proof and provided reasonable treatment for all dates of service pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4600; that the medical treatment services provided were reasonably required to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of an industrial injury; complied with section 4610 and followed conservative treatment guidelines which the parties' agreed medical evaluator (AME) found to be reasonable.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Lack of evidence that lien claimants' medical treatment services complied with MTUS guidelines, which is essential to prove reasonableness and necessity.
From the decision · page 9The medical treatment services provided at COSC consisted of lumbar ACEOM guidelines epidural steroid injections and lumbar facet joint blocks requested and performed by Marina Russman M.D. on 11/15/12 and 1/24/13. Be that as it may, Lien Claimant did not provide any evidence that the medical treatment services provided were in accordance with the MTUS. Providing such evidence is an essential element of Lien Claimant's burden of proof. Thus, Lien Claimant did not meet its burden to prove that the medical treatment services it provided were reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of said injury or injuries.
Applicant's treating physician Dr. Marina Russman provided lumbar epidural steroid injections and durable medical equipment; her reports and invoices were part of the record.
From the decision · page 9The medical treatment services provided at COSC consisted of lumbar ACEOM guidelines epidural steroid injections and lumbar facet joint blocks requested and performed by Marina Russman M.D. on 11/15/12 and 1/24/13. Be that as it may, Lien Claimant did not provide any evidence that the medical treatment services provided were in accordance with the MTUS. Providing such evidence is an essential element of Lien Claimant's burden of proof. Thus, Lien Claimant did not meet its burden to prove that the medical treatment services it provided were reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of said injury or injuries.
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.