Garcia v. WCAB CA2/5

Filed 6/17/14 Garcia v. WCAB CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

MIRIAN GARCIA, B242245

Petitioner, (W.C.A.B. No. ADJ7781989)

v.

WORKER’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY,

Respondents.

PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Annulled and remanded with directions. Hinden & Breslavsky, Adam Roehrick, Leon Kleyman, Roman Ferd for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Grancell, Stander, Reubens, Thomas and Kinsey, and Alexey Shapiro for Respondent Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency. _____________________________

Twenty-two medical reports prepared by seven individuals were excluded by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) because the reporting persons were not a part of the “medical provider network” (MPN) provided by the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (appeals board) affirmed this decision. On the same day of the appeals board’s decision, Division Seven of this court issued its opinion and decision in Valdez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1. The court held on pertinent facts identical to those in the case before us (hereafter referred to as B242245) that medical reports could not be excluded for the sole reason that they were prepared by persons not in the MPN. The Supreme Court granted review in Valdez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 207 Cal.App.4th 1. We stayed B242245 pending the Supreme Court’s decision. In Valdez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1231 (Valdez), the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision without any modifications. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, we issued a writ of review in B242245, informing the parties that we were inclined to annul the decision of the appeals board. We offered the parties an opportunity to file a stipulation which would allow this court, without filing of the record or any briefing, to annul the decision of the appeals board and to return B242245 to the appeals board to conduct additional proceedings that would conform to the decision and opinion in Valdez, supra, 57 Cal.4th 1231. The parties have not filed such a stipulation.