Atascadero Ford, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Thomas Cullen, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATHOMAS CULLEN,Applicant,vs.ATASCADERO FORD, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,Defendants.Case No. ADJ3033562 (GRO 0024532)(San Luis Obispo District Office)NOTICE OF INTENTION AND OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND Defendant’s petition for reconsideration of the March 30, 2016 decision of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) was previously granted by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) in order to further study the, record and issues in the case. In his March 30, 2016 decision, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) “allowed” medications requested by applicant’s physician, but found no basis for imposing additional penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 5814. In his accompanying Opinion on Decision (Opinion), the WCJ further wrote that he found the decision in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 98] (significant panel decision) (Patterson) “to be applicable” to applicant’s physician’s Request For Authorization (RFA) to continue applicant’s aqua therapy because there was no showing that applicant’s condition or circumstances changed in a way to justify termination of the therapy.1 1 Significant panel decisions are not binding precedent in workers’ compensation proceedings; however, they are intended to augment the body of binding appellate court and eh bane decisions and, therefore, a panel decision is not deemed “significant” unless, among other things: (1) it involves an issue of general interest to the workers’ compensation community, especially a new or recurring issue about which there is little or no published case law; and (2) all Appeals Board members have reviewed the decision and agree that it is significant. (See Elliott v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 355, 361, fu. 3 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 81
Menu
