Evelyn Fletcher, vs. Feather River Hospital And Adventist Health System West,

(RDG 0113954)This case is about a worker's compensation dispute between Feather River Hospital and Adventist Health System West and Evelyn Fletcher. The dispute arose when Fletcher requested an expedited hearing on medical treatment issues and enforcement of her award. The hearing resulted in four orders, three of which were not final orders. The fourth order was a final order that directed the defendant to provide a nurse case manager to oversee applicant's medical treatment and to provide psychological counseling to applicant. The defendant sought reconsideration or removal of the orders, claiming that they were not supported by substantial evidence and that they denied due process. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal and granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinding the order and returning the matter to the

FEATHER RIVER HOSPITAL and ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM WEST, EVELYN FLETCHER, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEVELYN FLETCHER, Applicant,vs.FEATHER RIVER HOSPITAL and ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM WEST, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ2249081 (RDG 0113954)OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL, GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration or, in the alternative, removal of the Orders that a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued in this case on May 29, 2009, when the matter came on for an expedited hearing on the subject of applicant’s entitlement to medical treatment to cure or relieve the effects of her industrial injury. The Minutes of Hearing (MOH) of the expedited trial on May 28, 2009 set forth the following 4 orders;       1) Subject to conditions which I will state momentarily,       defendant is ordered to provide these procedures.       Additionally, defendant is ordered to provide a nurse case       manager and psychological counseling.       2) Defendant is further ordered that any time it authorizes a       procedure, that it assures that the provider of that procedure       and applicant understand that the authorization exists.       3) Applicant shall present to defendant statements showing the       cost of the trochanter injections and the parties shall adjust       that, with jurisdiction reserved.       4) Unless defendant decides to rely on existing requests and       recommendations for the procedures in question, it shall       forthwith correspond with Dr. Malik and request an updated ,        statement as to what procedures he is recommending. If       defendant chooses to subject his recommendations to       utilization review, it shall do so promptly and, in any event,       within the time limits set forth in the Labor Code and the       California Code of Regulations.            It is defendant’s contention that the Orders to prov

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.