TREATING PHYSICIAN– Labor Code §4601– Identity of Treating Physician– In determining the identity of the primary treating physician, one procedural issue is whether the physician identified himself as such to the applicant. (See Pinkerton Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (Samuel) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1019, 3 WCAB Rapt. 10,180.) California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Clifford Shirpser) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,154

WCAB PROCEDURE– Change of Treating Physician– The employer has control of medical treatment for the first 30 days after an industrial injury. [In this case, the injured worker appropriately designated a new treating physician and began treatment after the 30-day period had expired. There was no evidence presented that the injured worker illegally attempted to deny the employer's right of medical control.] Corsican Furniture v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Antonio Ramirez) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,306

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Change of Primary Treating Physician– Cal.Code of Regs. Title 8, §9785(b)– When the applicant is discharged by the primary treating physician, and there is a dispute regarding need for continuing treatment, no other primary treating physician may be identified until the dispute is resolved. If it is determined that there is no need for continuing treatment, the physician who discharged the worker remains the primary treating physician. (See Tenet/Centinela Hosp. Med. Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rushing) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1041, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,205.) Elmer Bonifacio v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Marriott International. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,184

WCAB PROCEDURE– Petition for change of primary treating physician– California Code of Regulations, Title 8 §9785– When an order by the Administrative Director grants a petition for change of primary treating physician, any aggrieved by the order may petition the Appeals Board for relief within 50 days from the date of the issuance of the order in the same manner as specified for petitions for reconsideration. In the proceeding before the Appeals Board, the WCJ may admit evidence not filed with the Administrative Director since the Appeals Board as an affirmative duty to develop the record. (See Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,052.) Argonaut Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Eduardo Jimenez) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,050

WCAB PROCEDURE– Change of primary treating physician– An injured worker is entitled to change treating physicians until the primary treating physician discharged the worker. In this context "discharge" means release from care. [In this case, the injured worker had not been discharged by the primary treating physician and was free to change her primary treating physician. City of Santa Ana v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Estella Baker) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,333

WCAB PROCEDURE– Petition for Change of Primary Treating Physician– California Code of Regulations Title 8, §9786– Defendant is estopped to raise the issue of the lack of geographic proximity in seeking a change in treating physician because the injured worker relied on approval by the defendant of treatment by the physician before moving his residence. County of Santa Barbara v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Michael Buck) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,315

WCAB PROCEDURE– Change of treating physician– Labor Code §§4061 and 4062 procedure– An injured worker must receive written notice of permanent and stationary status and discharge from further medical care before the dispute resolution procedures of Labor Code §4061 and 4062 are triggered. Reliance National Insurance Corporation in liquidation administered for California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Zsa Zsa Singleton) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,276

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Cal. Code of Regs. Title 8, §9785(b)– Where the primary treating physician discharges the employee from further treatment and there is a dispute concerning the need for continuing treatment, no other primary treating physician shall be identified unless and until the dispute is resolved. (See Tenet/Centinella Hospital Medical Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rushing) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1041, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,205.) [In this case, the treating physician opined that the injured worker had received the maximum expected benefit from conservative medical treatment and declared the injured worker permanent and stationary.] Gittle Saks, M.D. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Arga's Mexican Foods (Raphael Espinosa) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,347

WCAB PROCEDURE– Change of treating physician– Cal.Code of Regs., Title 8, §9785– When the primary treating physician has declared the employee's injury to be permanent and stationary, released the employee to return to work, and prescribed no further doctor-involved treatment or visits, the employee is discharged from care and is required to comply with the provisions of Rule 9785(b) and Labor Code §§4061 and 4062, before being allowed to change primary treating physician. (See Hines v. New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. (2001) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,176 [en banc].) [In this case, on the date the applicant designated a new primary treating physician, the then treating physician had not authored a report releasing applicant from medical treatment on an industrial basis.] Cambridge Integrated Services Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Cyril Ebner) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,344

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Administrative Director Rule §9785– The primary treating physician is defined "as the physician who is primarily responsible for managing care of an injured employee, and who has examined the employee at least once for the purpose of rendering or prescribing treatment and has monitored the effect of the treatment thereafter." [In this case, the WCJ properly found that the physician had abdicated his role as the primary treating physician by failing to monitor the effect of treatment or lack thereof without even examining the worker and obtaining her current complaints.] Marriott International, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Leslie McGrew) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,238

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Cal.Code of Regs., Title 8, §9785– There can be only one primary treating physician who is primarily responsible for managing care of an injured worker and who has examined the injured worker at least once for the purpose of prescribing treatment and has monitored the effect of the treatment thereafter. [In this case, the lien holder was a chiropractor who was neither the applicant's primary treating physician since he was not in charge of managing applicant's medical treatment and was not a secondary physician to whom applicant had been referred by the primary treating physician for consultation or for specialized treatment.] William Hinchman, D.C., v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Samuel Casillas) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,186

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Designation of primary treating physician– Cal.Code of Regs., Title 8, §9785– A designation by applicant of a new primary treating physician is ineffective when the primary treating physician has found the applicant to be permanent and stationary without need of continuing care. (See Tenet v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rushing) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 241, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,205.) Legion Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Manuel Calderon) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,139

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Designation as primary treating physician– California Code of Regulations §9785(a)– The primary treating physician is the physician who is primarily responsible for managing the care of an injured worker, and who has examined the employee at least once for the purpose of rendering or prescribing treatment and has monitored the effect of the treatment thereafter. Don Hargraves v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, San Diego Unified Port District 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,045

TREATING PHYSICIAN– designating a new treating physician– An injured worker can not designate a new treating physician until any dispute regarding further medical treatment is resolved. [In this case, the primary treating physician had effectively discharged the injured worker from further medical care and treatment. He scheduled no follow-up appointments and specifically indicated applicant was in no need of further therapy, diagnostic testing or surgery. He did not suggest that further medical treatment could be expected to improve his condition and recommended occasional over-the-counter non=steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, self-applied heat and/or ice and continued home exercise stretching and strengthening program.] (See Rodriguez v. Workers' Comp. Appelas Bd. (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1747.) Don Hargraves v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, San Diego Unified Port District. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,045

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Admissibility of medical reports– Even though Labor Code §4061.5 requires the treating physician primarily responsible for managing the care of the injured worker to incorporate the findings of other physicians, this does not render the treating physician's report inadmissible or invalid. [In this case, one physician was treating the back and another physician was treating a shoulder injury and neither physician incorporated the finding of the other physician. The WCJ admitted both reports into evidence and gave the injured worker the rating he received from his treating physician for his shoulder and the rating the received from the treating physician for his back.] Deovlet & Sons Furniture v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Tommie Owens, Jr.) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,077

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Labor Code §4061.5– The provision of treatment in and of itself does not render a physician to be a primary physician within the meaning of Labor Code §4061.5. Sharon Harrison v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, County of Santa Barbara. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,062

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Change of physician– While it is true that under Labor Code §4603 and Administrative Director Rule 9786, the employer may compel the applicant to change physicians if the treating physician does not comply with Administrative Director Rule 9785 (timeliness of medical reports, adequacy of medical reports, etc.), the statutory scheme does not permit the employer to seize control of the applicant's medical treatment indefinitely. (See generally, Ralphs Grocery Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lara) (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 820.) St. Bernardine Medical Center v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Ruby Lavalais) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,062

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Labor Code §4062.9– A WCJ can not rely on medical reports from physicians who saw the injured worker after he had been completely discharged from care of the initial primary treating physician. (See Tenet/Centinela Hospital v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 80 CalApp. 1041, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,205.) Roberto Herver v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board, Shelter Cove Lodge. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,062

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Labor Code §4062.9– Where an injured worker has been found permanent and stationary but in need of further medical treatment, the injury worker may change treating physician without comply with the provisions of Labor Code §4061 and 4062. San Gabriel Valley Medical Center v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Joan Cullen) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,029

TREATING PHYSICIAN– Objection to treating physician's reports– Labor Code §4062– Where an injured employee is discharged from care by the primary treating physician and disagrees with the physician's determination, the employee must resolve the dispute pursuant to the procedures of Labor Code section 4062 before the employee may legitimately select a new primary treating physician. (See Tenet/Centinela Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rushing) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1041, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,205.) Ralph Holland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Reliance Steel & Aluminum. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,316

TREATING PHYSICIAN– CHANGE OF PHYSICIAN PROCEDURES– Labor Code §4601– The employer controls treatment for 30 days after the injury. The employee may request a one-time change of treating physician from the employer during that period. The employer must provide the employee an alternative physician within 5 working days from the date of request. When responding to the request the employer should provide the name and address of the alternative physician and clearly designate the alternative physician as the primary treating physician. Pinkerton, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Tinishia Samuel) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,180

TREATING PHYSICIAN PRESUMPTION–Labor Code &sec;4062.9–In this case, the treating physician presumption of correctness was warranted by the record that showed the treating physician treated the injured worker for 11 months prior to the permanent and stationary date and because the treating physician had performed the surgery and supervised follow-up care, he had a better perspective over time as to the injured worker's limitations and capabilities. Ann McCollough v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Interstate Brands, Corp. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,294

TREATING PHYSICIAN PRESUMPTION–Labor Code &sec;4062.9–In this case, the treating physician presumption of correctness was warranted by the record that the opinion of the treating physician was consistent with testimony and the unrebutted evidence that prior to his industrial injury the injured worker had no work restrictions and no complaints of pain, and any neurological problem that may have pre-dated his injury, "lighted-up" his condition and never returned to pre-injury status. Sony Corporation v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Bernardo Larios) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,294