</h1> <article> <h1>Elayne Valdez v. Warehouse Demo Services</h1> <p>martianteam — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:37:21 +0000</p> <p><a href="http://www.dir.ca.gov/wcab/EnBancdecisions2011/Valdez_E.pdf" target="_blank">Elayne Valdez v. Warehouse Demo Services</a>, ADJ7048296, 76 Cal. Comp.Cases<br /> _____ (Appeals Board En Banc 9/27/11) affirms the Board’s prior holding<br /> that, where unauthorized treatment is obtained for an industrial injury<br /> outside a validly established and properly noticed Medical Provider Network<br /> (MPN), the resulting non-MPN treatment reports are inadmissible.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Tsegay Messele v. Pitco Foods</h1> <p>martianteam — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:36:37 +0000</p> <p><a href="http://www.dir.ca.gov/wcab/EnBancdecisions2011/Messele_Tsegay.pdf" target="_blank">Tsegay Messele v. Pitco Foods</a>, Inc., ADJ7232076, 76 Cal. Comp.Cases _____,<br /> (Appeals Board En Banc 9/26/11) provides that when the first written agreed<br /> medical examiner proposal is made by any method other than personal service,<br /> the period for seeking agreement on an AME under Labor Code section<br /> 4062.2(b) is extended five days if the party being served is within<br /> California.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Jose Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders</h1> <p>martianteam — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:35:59 +0000</p> <p><a href="http://www.dir.ca.gov/wcab/EnBancdecisions2011/GuitronJose.pdf" target="_blank">Jose Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders</a>, ADJ163338, 76 Cal. Comp.Cases 228<br /> (Appeals Board En Banc 3/17/11) provides that the employer is required to<br /> provide reasonably required interpreter services during medical treatment<br /> appointments for an injured worker who is unable to speak, understand, or<br /> communicate in English. Interpreter lien claimants have the burden of<br /> proving, among other things, that the services it provided were reasonably<br /> required, that the services were actually provided, that the interpreter was<br /> qualified to provide the services, and that the fees charged were<br /> reasonable.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Amelia Mendoza v. Huntington Hospital</h1> <p>martianteam — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:33:55 +0000</p> <p><a href="http://www.dir.ca.gov/wcab/EnBancdecisions2010/Mendoza%20A%20-%20en%20banc%2 0re%20AD%20Rule%2030(d)(3)%20(6-2-10%20final%20draft).pdf" target="_blank">Amelia Mendoza v. Huntington Hospital</a>, ADJ6820138 & ADJ6820197 75<br /> Cal.Comp.Cases 634 (Appeals Board En Banc June 3, 2010) provides that the<br /> time limits of Labor Code section 4062(a) for objecting to a treating<br /> physician’s medical determination do not apply when the injury has been<br /> entirely denied by the defendant.</p> </article> </main></body></html>