Ameri-Cold Logistics; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Thomas Herrera WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATHOMAS HERRERA, Applicant,vs.AMERI-COLD LOGISTICS; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7091667(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION In order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, on October 7, 2011, we granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Orders of July 29, 2011, wherein it was found that “applicant may obtain medical treatment outside [defendant’s Medical Provider Network].” In this matter, while employed during a cumulative period ending on August 28, 2009, applicant sustained industrial injury to his psyche and claims to have sustained industrial injury to his “internal” and in the forms of headaches and sleep disorder. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant was entitled to treat outside the defendant’s medical provider network (MPN). We have received an answer and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report). Our review of this matter is complicated by the fact that the WCJ never made a ruling on the admissibility of the documentary evidence, all of which is marked “for identification only.” In the Minutes of Hearing of the June 13, 2011 trial, the WCJ wrote that “Exhibits A and B will be marked for identification, entered into the record, subject to the objection from [applicant’s counsel] to part of Exhibit B, limited to the signature page.” In the same sentence, the WCJ appears to state that the documents have only been “marked for identification” but “entered into the record.” It is also unclear to us why both exhibits are only marked for identification when applicant’s counsel apparently only , objected to part of one exhibit. Nevertheless, even without consider
