STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, BRICE SANDHAGEN, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABRICE SANDHAGEN, Applicant,vs.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ4047184 (RDG 0115958)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER REMITTITUR On July 16, 2009, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District issued its unpublished Opinion after Remand by Supreme Court in State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sandhagen) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 835. The Court annulled our decision in Sandhagen v. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc. (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1452 (appeals board en banc) (Sandhagen I), affirmed in Sandhagen v. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 208 (appeals board en banc) (Sandhagen II), and remanded the matter to us for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. This is our decision after remittitur. Applicant, while employed as a construction foreman on October 22, 2003, sustained an industrial injury to his neck, back, left elbow and left wrist. On July 21, 2004, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Findings and Award and Order, finding in relevant part that applicant was entitled to a cervical and upper thoracic MRI recommended by his treating physician; and that, because defendant had not complied with the time deadlines of Labor Code section 4610(g)(1),’ it was barred from reliance on the utilization review process and that the report of its utilization review physician was inadmissible. 1Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. , Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration. In our en banc decision in Sandhagen I, we held in relevant part that “[w]hen a defendant does not meet the section 4610(g)(1) deadlines, it may use the procedure established by section 4062(a) to dispute the treating physician’s treatment recommendation; however, the defendant (not the applicant) is then the ‘objecting part
Menu
