JOSE ROGER ABAN vs. CAL CENTURIAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. Dba RWR CONSTRUCTION And ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute between Jose Roger Aban, the applicant, and Cal Centurian Construction, Inc. dba RWR Construction and Zenith Insurance Company, the defendants. Aban was injured in a work-related incident and sought medical treatment outside of the defendants' Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendants' petition for reconsideration and found that the lien claimant, Neurology Evaluation Centers, was not entitled to satisfaction of its lien as the defendants had provided Aban with MPN notices at the time of his injury and he had initially begun treatment within the MPN.

CAL CENTURIAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba RWR CONSTRUCTION and ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY JOSE ROGER ABAN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE ROGER ABAN, Applicant,vs.CAL CENTURIAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba RWR CONSTRUCTION andZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2460603 (OAK 0348588)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION ANDDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the May 14, 2012 Findings and Orders wherein the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that lien claimant Neurology Evaluation Centers is entitled to satisfaction of its lien. Applicant’s underlying workers’ compensation case for an injury to his low back on May 16, 2008 was settled by Compromise and Release.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that lien claimant is entitled to satisfaction of its lien, arguing that defendant offered medical treatment within a valid medical provider network (MPN) and lien claimant did not produce evidence that defendant neglected or refused to provide medical treatment to applicant.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have not received an answer from the lien claimant. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that we deny reconsideration.             For the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration and find that lien claimant is not entitled to recover on its lien.            The lien at issue is for self-procured medical treatment outside of defendant’s MPN.1 Defendant 1 In its petition for reconsideration, defendant noted that the WCJ appeared to imply that the lien was for medical-legal expenses. The WCJ acknowledged that he “muddied the waters” and confirmed that the lien at issue is for medical treatment. (Report, p. 7.) , did not provide applicant with MPN notices prior to his work-related injury. However, defe

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.