CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior order that found Dr. Mata's treatment reasonable and necessary. The Board found that Dr. Mata, as the lien claimant, failed to meet his burden of proof by not submitting sufficient evidence, such as itemized bills, to demonstrate the reasonableness and necessity of his services. Therefore, Dr. Mata's lien claim was disallowed. One commissioner dissented, agreeing with the original administrative judge that Dr. Mata's reporting was sufficient given the admitted injury and lack of contrary evidence from the defendant.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior order that found Dr. Mata's treatment reasonable and necessary. The Board found that Dr. Mata, as the lien claimant, failed to meet his burden of proof by not submitting sufficient evidence, such as itemized bills, to demonstrate the reasonableness and necessity of his services. Therefore, Dr. Mata's lien claim was disallowed. One commissioner dissented, agreeing with the original administrative judge that Dr. Mata's reporting was sufficient given the admitted injury and lack of contrary evidence from the defendant.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.