Jose Contreras, vs. Gehr Industries; And State Compensation Insurance Fund,

(MON 0299863) is a case in which lien claimant, L.A. Regional Surgery Center (LARSC), by and through its representative, CMS Network, Inc. (CMS), and Dominic D. Arguello (Arguello), a hearing representative for CMS, filed a petition seeking reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 25, 2008. The WCJ found that the reasonable value of the outpatient surgery center services provided by LARSC is $9,692.93 and awarded LARSC $8,279.88, plus interest. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision and removed the case to itself to study the facts

GEHR INDUSTRIES; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, JOSE CONTRERAS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE CONTRERAS, Applicant,vs.GEHR INDUSTRIES; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3287808 (MON 0299863)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION AND ORDER GRANTING REMOVAL ON APPEALS BOARD’S MOTION            Lien claimant, L.A. Regional Surgery Center (LARSC), by and through its representative, CMS Network, Inc. (CMS), and Dominic D. Arguello (Arguello), a hearing representative for CMS, filed a timely petition seeking reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 25, 2008. In that decision, the WCJ found that the reasonable value of the outpatient surgery center services provided by LARSC is $9,692.93. Defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, was given credit for previous payments totaling $1,413.05. Therefore, LARSC was awarded $8,279.88, plus interest.            In their petition, LARSC, CMS, and Arguello assert that the WCJ should have ordered defendant to pay the lien balance of $74,259.95, plus penalties and interest. In making this assertion, LARSC, CMS, and Arguello state, among other things: that “it is defendant’s burden to prove that the amount charged by Lien Claimant is unreasonable” (Petition, at p. 6); “[t]he defendant is objecting to Lien Claimant’s charges and should therefore be required to prove, by substantial evidence, that Lien Claimant’s charges are unreasonable” (Petition, at p. 8); and that defendant has failed to meet their evidentiary burden pursuant to Labor Code Section 3202.5″ (Petition, at p. 8). ,             No answer to the petition was received from defendant.            On February 10, 2009, we granted reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We now issue our Decision After Reconsideration. Based on our review of the recor

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.