EL AGUILA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.; SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF ILLINOIS; SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., In Liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and BROADSPIRE (Servicing Facility), JESUS CERVANTES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJESUS CERVANTES, Applicant,vs.EL AGUILA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.; SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF ILLINOIS; SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., In Liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and BROADSPIRE (Servicing Facility), Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ3675309 (SAL 0081669)ADJ2967795 (SAL 0101259)ADJ3517685 (SAL 0077391)ADJ1962561 (SAL 0077392)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) We granted the petition for reconsideration of defendant, Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (Safeco), to allow time to further study the record and applicable law. Thereafter, to secure uniformity of decision in the future, the Chairman of the Appeals Board, upon a majority vote of its members, assigned this case to the Appeals Board as a whole for an en bane decision (Lab. Code, § 115)’ regarding the proper procedure to be followed when an injured employee’s treating physician has recommended spinal surgery. We hold that the procedures and timelines governing objections to a treating physician’s recommendation for spinal surgery are contained in Labor Code sections 4610 and 40622 and in 1En bane decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers’ compensation judges. (Lab. Code, § 115; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10341; City of Long Beach v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 313, fn. 5 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 109, 120, fn. 5] (Garcia); Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1425, fn. 6 [67 Cal.Comp.Cascs 236, 239, fn. 6].) In addition to being adopted as a precedent decision in accordance with Labor Code section 115 and Appeals Board Rule 10341, this en banc decision is also being adopted as a preceden
Menu
