Mario Campos, vs. Calcon Steel Construction; State I Compensation Insurance Fund,

This case involves a lien claimant, Reinherz Chiropractic, seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's decision to disallow their claim for additional payments for chiropractic treatment rendered to applicant, Mario Campos, beyond the 24 visits authorized and paid by defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). The WCJ denied defendant's claim for reimbursement for overpayment, finding the sum paid, $3,420.89, to be the reasonable value of lien claimant's services. The WCJ also found lien claimant failed to perfect its lien, and that lien claimant is not entitled to penalties or interest on the services provided. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the Findings and

CALCON STEEL CONSTRUCTION; STATE I COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MARIO CAMPOS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIO CAMPOS, Applicant,vs.CALCON STEEL CONSTRUCTION;STATE I COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. ADJ1440077 (VNO 0516540)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Lien claimant, Reinherz Chiropractic, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order, issued October 15, 2008, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) disallowed lien claimant’s claim for additional payments for chiropractic treatment rendered to applicant, Mario Campos, beyond the 24 visits authorized and paid by defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), as a result of applicant’s admitted industrial injuries. The WCJ denied defendant’s claim for reimbursement for overpayment, finding the sum paid, $3,420.89, to be the reasonable value of lien claimant’s services. The WCJ also found lien claimant failed to perfect its lien, and that lien claimant is not entitled to penalties or interest on the services provided.            Lien claimant contends the WCJ erred in denying reimbursement for additional chiropractic treatment, arguing that defendant admitted applicant sustained two separate injuries and that applicant is entitled to at least 24 visits for each injury. Lien claimant further argues that by failing to obtain its own medical reports, defendant has constructively authorized additional chiropractic treatment. Lien claimant also argues that defendant insurer did not legitimately object to its services, as defendant delegated this authority to a bill reviewer, whom lien claimant also contends , was not properly certified. Lien claimant argues next that it is entitled to full payment as applicant’s primary treating physician for the initial comprehensive evaluation, medical-legal evaluations and follow-up medical treatment. Lien claimant further argues that the 24 visit limit

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.