Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WWW.MULFIL.COM
BAKERSFIELD
CHICO
FRESNO
LOS ANGELES
OAKLAND
ORANGE
REDDING
RIVERSIDE
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOSE
SANTA ROSA
STOCKTON
VAN NUYS
Client Seminar 2016
∝ Subrogation ∝ UR/IMR ∝ Case Law Review
Presented By
Mullen & Filippi, LLP July/August 2016
Concord . San Francisco . Fresno . Sacramento . costa Mesa
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
1
TABLEOFCONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1
SUBROGATION .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Why Subrogate? ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Definition of Subrogation .......................................................................................................................... 3
Legal Concepts .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Negligence ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Investigation .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Investigation Documentation ................................................................................................................... 4
Methods to Pursue Recovery .................................................................................................................... 5
Statute of Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 5
Resolution Options .................................................................................................................................... 5
Steps to Take in Managing the Case ......................................................................................................... 5
Litigation Management ............................................................................................................................. 6
Pitfalls to Avoid ......................................................................................................................................... 6
MEDICAL TREATMENT = UTILIZATION REVIEW ............................................................................................ 8
How is medical treatment authorized? .................................................................................................... 8
Improper RFA ............................................................................................................................................ 9
UR Decision to Delay ................................................................................................................................. 9
UR Deferral on Disputes .......................................................................................................................... 10
UR Checklist: ........................................................................................................................................... 11
INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW (IMR) ..................................................................................................... 12
IMR Application ....................................................................................................................................... 12
IMR Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 12
IMR Timeliness ........................................................................................................................................ 13
IMR Determinations ................................................................................................................................ 13
Appeal of IMR Determination ................................................................................................................. 14
Appeal of IMR Determination ................................................................................................................. 15
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
2
CASE LAW UPDATE ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Untimely IMR Determinations Are Valid And Are Not Subject To Appeal Due To The
Untimeliness Of The Determination .............................................................................................. 16
Death Due To Alcohol Consumption Not Barred By Intoxication Defense Where Industrial
Injury Causes Relapse Of Alcoholism ............................................................................................. 17
Good Faith Personnel Action Defense Does Not Apply To Stress‐Related Hypertension ...................... 18
“Sudden And Extraordinary” Exception In Labor Code §3208.3(D) Refers To The
Mechanism Of Injury, Not The Results Of The Injury .................................................................... 19
Either Party May Request QME Panel During 90‐Day Delay Period ....................................................... 20
WCAB Rejects Workers’ Compensation Judge’s Order Requiring Claim Adjuster To
Personally Appear At All Future Hearings ...................................................................................... 21
Duty To Notify Employee Of Workers’ Compensation Rights Not Triggered Until Employer
Has Notice Of Industrial Injury ....................................................................................................... 22
When Defendant Proves Applicant Was Given Written Notice Of Workers’ Compensation
Rights, Burden Shifts To Applicant To Prove Statute Of Limitations Is Tolled .............................. 23
Board Panel Rejects Permanent Disability Rating Based On Estimated Loss Of Use Of Body
Part ................................................................................................................................................. 24
AME’s General “Criticism” Of The AMA Guides Not Sufficient To Support
Almaraz/Guzman Rating ................................................................................................................ 25
Vocational Expert’s Report Fails To Support Diminished Future Earning Capacity ................................ 26
Trial Judge Improperly Applied Orthopedic Apportionment To All Categories Of
Permanent Disability ...................................................................................................................... 27
Labor Code §4664 Apportionment Requires Overlap Between Current Injury And Prior
Award ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Applicant Injured On Way To Medical Office Visit For Two Industrial Injuries Entitled To
Unapportioned Award Of Permanent Total Disability ................................................................... 29
Utilization Review Denial Must Be Communicated to Requesting Doctor Via Telephone,
Fax Or Email And In Writing ........................................................................................................... 30
Untimely Utilization Review Decision Is Invalid And WCAB May Determine If Requested
Treatment Is Reasonable And Supported By Medical Evidence .................................................... 31
WCAB Grants Appeal Of IMR Decision Based On Mistake Of Fact ......................................................... 32
Applicant’s Unsuccessful Attempts To Obtain Treatment From 5 Physicians Out Of More
Than 65 Names On Defendants’ MPN Did Not Allow Applicant To Treat Outside
MPN ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
3
SUBROGATION
WhySubrogate?• The purpose of subrogation is to place responsibility for the injury where it belongs. The
employer is entitled, by law, to attempt to recover losses that are the fault of another
entity/individual. The claims administrator holds a fiduciary duty to pursue recovery.
• A fiduciary duty is the obligation to operate in the best interest of the employer or the carrier.
• Employer: Subrogation recoveries are reported to the WCIRB as a credit for an insured client’s
experience modification factor. This could potentially assist with reducing the amount the
employer will pay in premium.
Experience Modifications: Factor determined by calculating the loss history, by frequency and
severity, and payroll which is used by states and underwriters to establish the insurance
premium for an employer. A subrogation recovery could reduce the severity factor for an
employer and generate a lower experience mod which could result in a lower premium for the
employer. As 3‐years of claim history are utilized, a recovery can have a positive impact on an
employer for 3‐years.
• Carriers: Recoveries improve a carrier’s profit margin as they reduce a carrier’s paid loss.
• Self‐Insured Entity: As the claims are paid by funds directly provided by the self‐insured entity,
they receive a dollar for dollar impact when a recovery is made. Recoveries will also reduce the
amount of the bond they are required to post with the State.
DefinitionofSubrogation• Subrogation is the right to pursue reimbursement from any third party whose negligent act or
omission caused us to pay a claim or increased the value of the payments made on a claim.
Example: Employee is shot in the eye with a nail gun. Potential subrogation exists against the
person utilizing the nail gun, owner of the nail gun, manufacture of the nail gun or the company
that sold the nail gun.
LegalConcepts• The key to a successful subrogation investigation is understanding what needs to be proven.
• Subrogation arises from either an overt act or omission on the part of another party.
• Subrogation potential arises from tortious conduct or omission, auto liability, premises liability,
and products liability.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
4
NegligenceElements of Negligence
1. Duty Owed
2. Duty Breached
3. Proximate Cause
4. Loss or Damage
Each of the 4 elements above must be proven to have a successful subrogation claim. You can
have a duty owed and breached with damages, however, if you fail to show that the duty
breached was the proximate cause of the damages you do not have a valid negligence claim.
Investigation• A workers compensation case is investigated to determine if injury occurred in the course and
scope of employment. The system is a no fault benefit system. Negligence is not an issue in the
investigation process.
• A subrogation case investigation is completed to determine negligence and liability. The Civil
Arena is based on damages.
• For the purposes of Subrogation we need to prove that the benefits paid in the workers
compensation system were actually owed. Defense can assert that disability or medical care
benefits paid were not warranted and diminish the value of our recovery.
Look for injuries related to the actions or inactions of others.
Examples as follows:
• Auto Accident
• Premises ‐ slip and falls
• Products ‐ Did a piece of equipment cause or contribute to the injury?
• Is there a potential design defect?
InvestigationDocumentation• Preservation of evidence is essential. Again if we cannot prove it we cannot prevail on it. With
our nail gun example we would want to obtain it and save it. We also need to document
possession of the gun so we can prove no alterations occurred to it from the time of the
accident through our taking possession.
• Spoliation letter(s)
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
5
• Investigator to photograph scene, measurements, instrumentation, and take recorded
statements from witnesses (for MVA’s good to hire a PI with former law enforcement
experience)
• Record of chain of custody for secured / preserved evidence
MethodstoPursueRecovery• Lien
• Complaint in Intervention
• Complaint
StatuteofLimitations• Private Sector: Suit needs to be filed and served within 2‐years from the date of the accident
• Public Agencies: 6‐months from the date of injury for State, County and City Governments.
• Federal: 2‐years from date of injury for Federal Government
To protect the statute, a formal complaint needs to be filed. Simply sending a letter is not sufficient.
ResolutionOptions• Settlement with Future Credit
• Sell our lien to the defendant
• 3rd Party Compromise and Release
• Verdict
StepstoTakeinManagingtheCase• Identify the Exposure;
• Investigate the Cause and Effect of the injury;
• Secure and preserve any relevant evidence;
• Identify the responsible party;
• Place the responsible party, applicant, employer, and carrier on notice of the subrogation
interest;
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
6
• Continue with investigation and gather evidence to support claim;
• Provide all parties with 90‐day updates on amount of our lien and request 100%
reimbursement;
• Identify appropriate resolution strategy;
• Complete cost benefit analysis;
• If necessary, preserve the Statute of Limitations.
• Attempt to avoid resolving the subrogation case prior to the value of the workers compensation
case being fully established. This is not always possible. If a coverage limit issue exists early
resolution may be warranted;
• Employ outside investigator when exposure and recovery potential warrant – Use Attorney
Work Product Privilege to preserve and protect your investigative efforts;
• Conference your case with manager and counsel on a regular basis;
• Establish recovery strategy early in the case and modify as facts are developed;
• When warranted retain services of subrogation counsel;
• When resolved complete appropriate settlement paper work and file on the WCAB. Remember
if credit rights are being claimed petition for credit must be filed and an order approving
pursued.
LitigationManagement• When needed, retain qualified subrogation counsel.
• Include all evidence, payment history, medical reports, and documentation with referral.
• Evaluate litigation strategy at all stages. Require defense to consistently provide a cost benefit
analysis and resolution recommendations.
• Keep counsel informed of benefit status and developments.
• Collaborate with counsel for best results.
PitfallstoAvoid• Never assume that someone else is protecting your interest. Your interest in a subrogation
matter needs to be monitored at all times.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
7
• Do not assume that the parties in the underlying WC matter are concurrently addressing civil
issues / interests.
• Never assume that statutes have been protected. Get copies of appropriate correspondence.
• Do not lose sight of your objective which is a + net cash recovery for client and a closed claim.
Monitor costs at all stages.
• Do not waive or reduce recovery rights without agreement from all parties. Often, you are not
dealing with your money.
• Always require subrogation counsel to provide an assessment on impact of litigation activities
on the net recovery.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
8
MEDICALTREATMENT=UTILIZATIONREVIEW
Howismedicaltreatmentauthorized?1. Treating physician completes a DWC Form RFA and submits it to claims adjuster. Title 8, CCR
Section 9792.9.1(a)
a. However, per recent case Lopez c. City and County of San Francisco, 2016 Cal. Wrk.
Comp. P.D. Lexis.. WCAB Panel found request for authorization submitted by secondary
treating physician triggered UR process. All requests for medical treatment
authorizations must be decided in accordance with Labor Code Section 4610 (UR) and
Labor Code Section 4610.5 (IMR).
b. RFAs are NOT necessary where there is a PR‐2 where it is clearly listed “Request for
Authorization” at top of the first page, all requested treatment must be on the first page
and the request is accompanied by supporting documentation. Title 8, CCR Section
9792.9.19(c)(2)(B) Please review Pr‐2’s even if no RFA is included, UR review may be
required.
2. Adjustor can approve the request.
3. Adjustor can submit request to UR for determination.
a. General rule is that UR must make a decision w/in 5 business days to approve, deny or
issue a delay letter. UR may issue a delay, but decision must be made within 14
calendar days of RFA receipt
b. Time of receipt:
i. Electronic date stamp on fax or email receipt: if RFA received or transmitted
after 5:30pm, date of receipt is next business day.
ii. Mail: receipt is 5 business days after RFA is sent.
iii. Certified mail w/return receipt: date on return receipt.
c. Expedited review (Labor Code Section 4610(g)(2) “employee faces an imminent and
serious threat to his/her health…provision of medical treatment services to employee
shall be made in a timely fashion that is appropriate for the nature of the employee’s
condition but not to exceed 72 hrs. after receipt of the information reasonably
necessary to make the determination.
d. UR must notify treating doctor of the decision by phone, fax or email within 24 hours of
decision.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
9
e. UR must follow up with written notice of the decision to the treating doctor, injured
worker, and applicant attorney within 2 business days of decision for prospective
review.
ImproperRFA1. If the DWC Form RFA is not completed properly, or if request for authorization is not on an RFA
form at all, a non‐ physician reviewer or reviewer may either treat the form as a completed RFA
and comply with the timeframes for decision or return it to the requesting physician marked
“not complete” no later than 5 business days from receipt. The timeframe for a decision on
that returned request for authorization shall begin anew upon receipt of the completed DWC
Form RFA. Title 8, CCR Section 9792.9.1(c )(2)
URDecisiontoDelay1. UR can be delayed up to 14 calendar days, BUT:
a. Delay must be requested within 5 business days of receipt of request.
b. UR doctor must explain what information is needed specifically and why it is needed to
make a decision.
i. “provide all documents that supports the request for authorization” is vague =
invalid.
ii. Need to state specifically what information you need and why it is necessary.
iii. UR delays for more information that is already within the adjustor’s possession
is invalid delay
2. If information requested by UR is not received within 14 calendar days, UR shall conditionally
deny the RFA and reconsider it upon receipt of the additional information. Title 8, CCR Section
9792.1(f)(3)(A)
a. Whenever a reviewer issues a decision to deny a request for authorization based on the
lack of medical information necessary to make a determination, the claims
administrator’s file must document the attempt by the claims administrator or reviewer
to obtain the necessary medical information from the physician either by fax, mail or
email.
3. If additional testing or specialized consultation is not completed within 30 days of the RFA date,
UR shall conditionally deny the RFA and reconsider it upon receipt of the additional information
4. UR is only delayed until the adjustor or reviewer received the information requested.
a. Once the information is received, the 5 day clock stars anew.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
10
5. UR delays for information that is already within the adjustor’s possession = invalid delay
URDeferralonDisputes1. UR review of a medical treatment request made on the DWC Form RFA may be deferred if the
claims administrator disputes liability for either the occupational injury for which the treatment
is recommended or the recommended treatment itself on the grounds other than medical
necessity = Commonly used for disputed body parts.
HOWEVER:
a. If claims administrator disputes liability under this subdivision, it may, no later than 5
business days from the receipt of the RFA, issue a written decision deferring utilization
review of the requested treatment. Tittle 8, CCR Section 9792.9.1(b)(1)
b. The written decision must be sent to the requesting physician, the injured worker, and
applicant attorney. Tittle 8, CCR Section 9792.9.1(b)(1). It could be argued that failure
to dispute liability for an RFA is waiver of UR for that RFA.
c. UR Deferral letter must have the following per Title 8, CCR 9792.9.1(b)(1)(A‐E):
i. The date on which the RFA was first received
ii. A description of the specific course of proposed medical treatment for which
authorization was requested
iii. A clear, concise, and appropriate explanation of the reason for the claims
administrator’s dispute of liability for either the injury, claimed body part, or
parts, or the recommended treatment
iv. A plain language statement advising the injured employee that any dispute
under this subdivision shall be resolved either by agreement of the parties or
through the dispute resolution process of the Workers’ compensation Appeals
Board
v. The fo0llowing mandatory language “you have a right to disagree with decisions
affecting your claim…..”
d. If UR is deferred pursuant to this section, and it is finally determined that the claims
administrator is liable for treatment of the condition for which the treatment is
recommended, either by decision or by agreement, the time to conduct retrospective
UR shall begin on the date the determination of the claims administrator’s liability
becomes final. The time for the claims administrator to conduct prospective review
shall commence from the date of the receipt of the RFA after the final determination of
liability.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
11
2. Very important if a claim is denied due to AOE/COE or any other reason, once the claim is
deemed compensable, the timeclock begins for UR review on the date that you accept liability
or the date the decision becomes final. Title 8, CCR 9792.9.1(b)(2). If you blow this timeline,
then you are looking at litigating medical necessity at the WCAB for all these deferred RFA’s.
URChecklist:1. What day did adjustor receive RFA?
• on the following calendar day count out 5 business days. Some response from UR is
due. If none, UR is not timely
2. Was UR delayed properly?
• request for delay must be received within 5 business days of the date of RFA receipt.
3. If UR was untimely or improperly delayed, applicant still has to prove medical necessity.
• review MTUS and prepare documents from the medical file that discount the medical
necessity of the requested treatment. Make sure you come prepared with these
documents at the Expedited Hearing.
• many applicant attorneys forget their burden of proving medical necessity
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
12
INDEPENDENTMEDICALREVIEW(IMR)
When there is a UR determination denying, modifying or delaying treatment, the employee may
choose to obtain review of that UR determination through IMR. Labor Code Section 4610.5 (d)
IMRApplication1. With a Utilization Review (UR) determination denying, modifying or delaying medical
treatment, an IMR application must be included. LC Section 4610.5 (d)
2. The employee must request IMR no later than 30 days after the service of the UR
determination. Labor Code Section 4610.5(h)(1)
3. The submission must include:
a. Representative Designation;
b. Signed and completed IMR Application;
c. Copy of the Application sent to claims administrator;
d. Copy of the UR determination letter
An unverified IMR Application is subject to dismissal, although the party would be given reasonable
time to cure the defect. Torres v. SCIF (2014) 42 CWCR 193, 79 CCC 1181 (significant Panel Decision)
IMRProcedure1. The Administrative Director (AD) will assign the request to the IMR Organization (IMRO), i.e.,
Maximus, and within 10 days of assignment, the employer must submit to Maximus all relevant
medical documents and records. If there is threat of imminent and serious harm to the
employee, then the relevant medical documents and records must be submitted within 24
hours. LC Section 4610.5(l); Section 4610.5(n); Section 4610.5(o)
2. The claims administrator shall send a copy of all reports of the physician relevant to the
employer’s current medical condition produced within six (6) months prior to the date of the
RFA, including those that are specifically identified in the request for authorization or in the UR
determination. Title 8 CCR Section 9792.10.5 (a)(1)(A)
Employee entitled to another IMR review because employer did not provide Maximus with the
AME report that recommended the denied procedure. Garibay‐Jimenez v. Santa Barbara
Medical Foundation Clinic (2015) 43 CWCR 92
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
13
However, UR denial is not defective if the missing medical reports would not have changed the
result. Otten v. CIGA (2014) 42 CWCR 196 (WCAB)
3. The claims administrator shall…forward to the employee and the employee’s representative a
notification that lists all the documents submitted to Maximus, and shall provide to the
employee and the employee’s representative with documents that were not previously
provided. Title 8, CCR 9792.10.5
Failure to serve Applicant’s Attorney with IMR materials rendered the UR denial invalid. Bigham
v. Oak Ins. Co. (2014) 42 CWCR 122 (WCAB)
IMRTimeliness1. The IMRO, i.e., Maximus, shall complete its review and make its determination in writing, within
30 days of the receipt of the request for review and supporting documentation. If there is an
imminent and serious threat to the health of the employee may exist, the analyses and
determinations of the reviewers shall be expedited and rendered within three days of the
receipt of the information. LC Section 4610.6(d)
An IMR decision that was not issued within 45 days of the IMR assignment was
invalid. Saunders v. Loma Linda University Medical Group (2015) 43 CWCR 145 (WCAB).
2. However, there is case law which holds that the IMR timelines are not mandatory but
directory. In short, even if IMR does not make its determination in writing within 30 days, the
IMR decision is not invalid.
Arredondo v. Tri‐Modal Distribution Services, Inc.(SCIF) (2015) 2015 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis
209; Stevens v. WCAB (2015) 43 CWCR 252, 80CCC 1262 (CA 1st ‐ pub); CHP (SCIF) v. WCAB
(Margaris) (2016) ADJ9397913, 2nd D.C.A.
IMRDeterminations1. In 2015, 88.6% of UR determinations were upheld by IMR; 91% of UR determinations were
upheld in 2014.
2. If/when IMR does not uphold the UR determination to delay, modify or deny trying and finds
the treatment to be appropriate, the employer must authorize the serves within five (5)
working days of receipt of the determination. Labor Code Section 4610.6(j)
3. In the case of reimbursement for services already rendered, the employer shall reimburse the
provider or employee, whichever applies, within 20 days, subject to resolution of any remaining
issue of the amount. Labor Code Section 4610.6(j)
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
14
4. Failure to pay for services already provided or to authorize services not yet rendered within the
time prescribed is a violation and, in addition to any other fines, penalties, and other remedies
available to the AD, the employer shall be subject to an administrative penalty in an amount
determined pursuant to regulations to be adopted by the AD, not to exceed five thousand
dollars ($5,000) for each day the decision is not implemented. Labor Code Section 4610.6(k)
AppealofIMRDetermination1. An IMR determination is final and binding unless appealed to the Board within 30 days of the
date of the mailing of the determination by the aggrieved employee or employer. LC Section
4610.6 (g); Section 4610.6(h)
2. There are five (5) grounds upon which the IMR determination can be appealed:
• The AD acted in excess of powers;
• The determination procured by fraud;
• The IMR reviewer was subject to a material conflict of interest;
• The determination was the result of bias based on race, national origin, ethnic group
identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability.
• The determination was the result of a plainly erroneous express or implied finding of fact.
In Gonzalez‐Ornelas v. County of Riverside, (2016) (Pomona WCAB‐ ADJ227596 and
AJD3720208), WCJ reversed finding of the AD/IMR that knee injections should be denied as
reviewer erroneously stated that no documentation that applicant was suffering from
osteoarthritis and did not benefit from injections.
In McAtee v. SCIF, (2015) (Sacramento WCAB‐ ADJ2068970, WCJ reversed finding of the AD/IMR
that Duragesic patches should be denied as reviewer erroneously stated that the applicant did
not benefit or have symptom relief from the patches.
Petition Appealing Independent Medical Review Determination Title 8 CCR Section 10958.1
If a party believes that one of the five grounds has been violated, then the aggrieved party may
file a Petition with the AD.
3. The petition shall be filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board no later than 30 days
after service by mail of the IMR determination. An untimely petition may be summarily
dismissed.
4. The caption of the petition shall identify it as a Petition Appealing Administrative Director's
Independent Medical Review Determination. The caption shall include:
a. the injured employee's first and last names;
b. the name(s) of the defendant(s) involved in the IMR dispute;
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
15
c. the case number assigned by the AD to the IMR determination; and the adjudication
case number, if any, assigned by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to any
related application for adjudication of claim(s) previously filed.
d. The petition shall include a copy of the IMR determination and proof of service to that
determination.
5. The petition shall comply with each of the following provisions:
e. The petition shall be limited to raising one or more of the five grounds specified in Labor
Code section 4610.6(h).
f. The petition shall set forth specifically and in full detail the factual and/or legal grounds
upon which the petitioner considers the IMR determination to be unjust or unlawful,
and every issue to be considered by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The
petitioner shall be deemed to have finally waived all objections, irregularities, and
illegalities concerning the IMR determination other than those set forth in the petition.
6. The petition shall comply with the requirements of sections 10842(a) & (c), 10846, and 10852. It
shall also comply with the provisions of section 10845, including but not limited to the 25‐page
restriction.
7. Any failure to comply with the provisions of this subdivision shall constitute valid ground for
summarily dismissing or denying the petition.
AppealofIMRDetermination1. A Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) must be filed for the WCAB to take action.
2. If at hearing the issues related to the Appeal of the IMR determination cannot be resolved, then
the matter would then be set for Trial.
3. If the WCJ agrees the determination of the AD/(IMR) should be reversed, the dispute shall be
remanded to the AD to submit the dispute to IMR, a different reviewer at Maximus. Labor Code
Section 4610.6(i)
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
16
CASELAWUPDATEUNTIMELY IMR DETERMINATIONS ARE VALID AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
APPEAL DUE TO THE UNTIMELINESS OF THE DETERMINATION
STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND vs. WCAB (MARGARIS)
(2016) 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 491
Applicant sustained an admitted work related injury to her left foot and lumbar spine. On October 16,
2014 the applicant’s treating physician submitted a Request for Authorization for lumbar epidural
steroid injections to SCIF. On October 21, 2014 SCIF issued a Utilization Review denial of the treatment.
The applicant timely requested Independent Medical Review. On November 26, 2014 SCIF sent the
medical records to Maximus for review. Maximus issued an IMR Determination upholding SCIF’s denial
of the injections on January 8, 2015, 43 days later. Labor Code §4610.6(d) provides that Maximus “shall
complete its review and make its determination in writing, and in laypersons terms to the maximum
extent practicable, within 30 days of the receipt of the request for review and supporting
documentation….”
Applicant argued that the 30 day time limit was mandatory and, therefore, the IMR Determination was
invalid, and the judge would have to determine medical necessity. The workers’ compensation judge
agreed that the decision was late, but said that an untimely IMR Determination “does not confer
jurisdiction on the [workers’ compensation judge] to decide any medical treatment issues” and found
the determination was valid and binding on the parties.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration and the WCAB panel in a 2 to 1 decision overturned the
workers’ compensation judge’s decision. The panel found the IMR Determination to be invalid because
it was untimely. It went on to find that there was substantial evidence to support the medical necessity
of the injection.
Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review before the 2nd District Court of Appeal. The 2nd District
Court of Appeal overturned the WCAB decision and reinstated the workers’ compensation judge’s
decision finding that that the IMR Determination was untimely, but nonetheless valid. The court
discussed the meaning of the word “shall.” It made a distinction between legislative directions for an
administrative body to perform an action as being either directory, which means the governmental
agency can be compelled by a court to take the action, or mandatory, which means that failure to take
the action in the manner prescribed invalidates the action. The court held that the requirement that
Maximus issue the IMR Determination within 30 days is directory. The failure to act within the 30 days
does not invalidate the final determination by IMR. The court reasoned that there was nothing in the
statute saying that an untimely determination will be invalid. The court went on to say that making an
untimely determination invalid would frustrate the policy of the statute (1) to have doctors make the
IMR Determination, and not judges, and (2) for the procedure to be efficient.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
17
DEATH DUE TO ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION NOT BARRED BY INTOXICATION DEFENSE WHERE
INDUSTRIAL INJURY CAUSES RELAPSE OF ALCOHOLISM
CITY OF STOCKTON vs. WCAB
(2016) 81 Cal. Comp. Cases 212
Applicant, decedent’s spouse, filed a claim for death benefits.
Decedent sustained an accepted injury to his low back on September 12, 2006 while working as a
firefighter. He sought treatment from several doctors, including a psychologist from whom he had
previously sought treatment for “binge drinking” and other alcohol‐related issues.
On January 11, 2008, decedent was found dead in his bed. The cause of death was determined to
be acute ethanol intoxication. The Panel QME, a toxicologist, listed the cause of death as “acute
alcoholism.” The decedent’s blood alcohol level at the time of his death was .430.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge found that the death was compensable and awarded the widow
benefits.
The defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that the decedent had a long history of
alcohol abuse for which he had sought treatment and for which he had been subject to on‐the‐job
discipline. It also cited the “intoxication defense” in Labor Code §3600(a)(4) and argued that it had
proven (1) the employee imbibed intoxicants; (2) the employee was, in fact, intoxicated; and (3) the
intoxication caused the employee’s injury.
Applicant argued that the decedent’s underlying alcoholism had been aggravated by the industrial
back injury and that the death was the result of that aggravation. The WCAB Panel agreed, citing
reports from the psychiatrist that the applicant’s back injury was a “trigger” that caused his relapse
of alcoholism.
Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review which was denied by the Third District Court of Appeal.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
18
GOOD FAITH PERSONNEL ACTION DEFENSE DOES NOT APPLY TO STRESS‐RELATED HYPERTENSION
OLDEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 3
Applicant worked for the Department of Corrections as a research program specialist. She claimed
injury in the form of hypertension and psychiatric injury, including adjustment disorder and anxiety.
Applicant had a doctoral degree, but her entry‐level position did not require a college degree. Her
performance reviews showed that she had difficulty transitioning from an academic environment to
a State agency. Consequently, the applicant performed her work more slowly than her co‐workers.
This also resulted in poor performance reviews.
The applicant was evaluated by a psychologist who determined that she suffered from anxiety and
adjustment disorder, which were entirely caused by her interactions with her supervisor and her
perceived harassment by that supervisor. In addition, the doctor attributed her stress to the volume
of work she was asked to do.
The applicant was also evaluated by an agreed medical examiner in internal medicine for the
claimed hypertension. The doctor found that the hypertension was caused by stress. He also noted
that the stress was the result of applicant’s interactions with her supervisor.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge found that the applicant’s interactions with her supervisor were
considered good faith personnel actions. Therefore, her claim of injury to the psyche was barred.
However, he awarded 3% permanent disability and future medical care for hypertension.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that all of the applicant’s claims were barred
by the good faith personnel action defense, per County of San Bernardino vs. McCoy.
The WCAB affirmed the Judge's decision. The Panel noted that this case was distinguishable from
McCoy because defendant failed to prove that applicant’s hypertension solely resulted from her
diagnosed psychiatric injury. Here, there was substantial evidence that other workplace stressors
(her workload) caused the stress that led to the hypertension.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
19
“SUDDEN AND EXTRAORDINARY” EXCEPTION IN LABOR CODE §3208.3(D)
REFERS TO THE MECHANISM OF INJURY, NOT THE RESULTS OF THE INJURY
TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY vs. WCAB
(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1101
Applicant was employed as a live‐in maintenance supervisor for an apartment complex. At the time
of his injury on October 19, 2009, he had been employed by the defendant for only 76 days.
As he was walking from one apartment building to another in the rain, he slipped on a wet walkway
and sustained numerous injuries, including a fractured pelvis and injury to his neck, right shoulder,
right leg and knee. His treatment required several surgeries, not all of which were successful.
In addition to the physical injuries, applicant alleged injury to the psyche. The defendant asserted
the six‐month employment requirement in Labor Code §3208.3(d).
Following Trial, the Workers’ Compensation Judge found that the applicant was entitled to an award
for his physical injuries, but denied the claim of injury to the psyche because the applicant had been
employed for less than six months and his injury did not result from a sudden and extraordinary
condition of employment.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration which was granted (with Commissioner Caplane
dissenting). The Panel found that the injury to the psyche was caused by an extraordinary
employment condition.
Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review which was granted.
In annulling the award, the Court of Appeal relied on Matea vs WCAB for the proposition that an
“extraordinary employment condition” is “something other than a regular and routine employment
event or condition.” The event must be “uncommon, unusual and occur [ ] unexpectedly.” Here,
slipping on a wet sidewalk in the rain was not such an uncommon or unusual event.
Applicant’s attorney argued that the catastrophic nature of applicant’s injuries would also support a
finding of an extraordinary employment condition. The Court disagreed. It noted that the statute
refers to “sudden and extraordinary employment conditions,” not the nature of the injuries
resulting from an incident.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
20
EITHER PARTY MAY REQUEST QME PANEL DURING 90‐DAY DELAY PERIOD
SANCHEZ vs. GRAPEVINE CATERING
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 136
Applicant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Pursuant to Labor Code §5402(b),
defendant placed the claim on delay.
On August 7, 2015, applicant submitted a Request for a QME Panel in the specialty of pain
management. On August 10, 2015, defendant submitted a QME Panel Request in the specialty of
orthopedics.
On September 2, 2015, the Medical Unit sent a letter to applicant stating that it could not fulfill the
Panel Request because it was premature per 8 CCR 30(d)(1). On September 4, 2015, the Medical
Unit issued a QME Panel in orthopedics as requested by defendant.
Applicant sought an Order invalidating the orthopedic Panel and compelling the Medical Unit to
issue a pain management Panel. That request was granted.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (which should have been a Petition for Removal),
citing 8 CCR 30(d)(1), which states that “the claims administrator, or if none the employer, may
request a panel of Qualified Medical Evaluators...to determine whether to accept or reject a
claim….” Therefore, defendant argued that only the defendant has the right to request a QME Panel
during the delay period.
The Board rejected the defendant's argument, noting that the language of the Regulation did not
exclude applicant from requesting a QME Panel. Further, Labor Code §4062.2 states that “either
party may request the assignment of a three‐member panel of qualified medical evaluators to
conduct a comprehensive medical evaluation.” To follow the defendant's interpretation of the
Regulation would place it in conflict with the statute.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
21
WCAB REJECTS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE’S ORDER REQUIRING CLAIM ADJUSTER
TO PERSONALLY APPEAR AT ALL FUTURE HEARINGS
BURFORD vs. COOK CONCRETE PRODUCTS
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 1
Applicant sustained three industrial injuries while employed as a yardman by defendant. Two
injuries were covered by Everest National and the third involved a shared cumulative trauma
between Everest and Clarendon National. Everest was ordered to administer all medical treatment,
subject to periodic contribution from Clarendon.
There were numerous hearings over various medical treatment issues. A Mandatory Settlement
Conference was scheduled for October 13, 2015 to address one of these disputes. The adjuster for
Everest was not available via telephone during that conference. The Workers’ Compensation Judge
continued the hearing to January 12, 2016 and wrote on the Minutes of Hearing that the adjuster
for Everest was ordered to “personally appear at all future hearings” unless otherwise excused by
the Workers’ Compensation Judge in advance.
Defendant filed a Petition for Removal which was granted.
The Commissioners acknowledged the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s frustration with the adjuster
not being available by telephone at the Mandatory Settlement Conference. However, a blanket
order which covers all future hearings is excessive and overbroad, particularly since the Workers’
Compensation Judge did not offer any explanation of why it was necessary for the adjuster to
personally appear at all future hearings.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
22
DUTY TO NOTIFY EMPLOYEE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RIGHTS
NOT TRIGGERED UNTIL EMPLOYER HAS NOTICE OF INDUSTRIAL INJURY
OSTINI vs. ALMA ROSA WINERY
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 76
Applicant worked as a hostess for defendant winery. Applicant alleged that drinking was allowed
while on the job.
Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving home from work (and after having
been drinking at work) on April 5, 2008. However, applicant did not file her Application for
Adjudication of Claim until February 6, 2013.
Defendant asserted the statute of limitations defense, as well as the intoxication defense in Labor
Code §3600(a)(4). The Workers’ Compensation Judge found that the claim was not barred by the
statute of limitations and awarded benefits.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration which was granted.
In reviewing the evidence, the Commissioners noted that applicant never returned to her job
following the motor vehicle accident and that there was no evidence she ever reported the accident
to her employer. Based on those facts, the Panel determined that there were no facts giving rise to
the employer’s duty to provide a claim form and notice of workers’ compensation rights. Therefore,
the statute of limitations was not tolled by the failure to provide a claim form.
Further, in specific injury cases (absent some basis for tolling) the statute of limitations runs from
the date of injury. Here, applicant did not file her Application until more than four years following
the date of injury.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
23
WHEN DEFENDANT PROVES APPLICANT WAS GIVEN WRITTEN NOTICE OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RIGHTS, BURDEN SHIFTS TO APPLICANT TO
PROVE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TOLLED
GALLAND vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 69
Applicant claimed injury to his neck and back on July 20, 2009 while employed by the Los Angeles
Unified School District. However, applicant did not file an Application for Adjudication of Claim until
November 6, 2013.
Defendant asserted a statute of limitations defense. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found that
“defendant has not sustained its burden of proof with respect to the statute of limitations” and
issued an award for the applicant’s injury to the back, but not to the neck.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration which was granted.
The Board Panel reviewed the Trial record and exhibits and noted that the uncontradicted testimony
showed that the employer provided applicant with a claim form on August 13, 2009. There was no
evidence whether the applicant filed the claim form with the employer.
The record also showed that defendant denied the claim on October 16, 2009. Therefore, applicant
had one year from that date within which to file his Application. The applicant offered no evidence
to show he did not receive the claim form or denial. Therefore, because he did not file the
Application within one year of the date of the denial, the claim was barred by the statute of
limitations.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
24
BOARD PANEL REJECTS PERMANENT DISABILITY RATING BASED
ON ESTIMATED LOSS OF USE OF BODY PART
WEAVER vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(2015) 2015 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 766
Applicant was employed concurrently by two employers, the Los Angeles Unified School District and
Federal Express. Applicant claimed injury to her right hand/wrist while working for Federal Express
and to her left hand/wrist as a result of a student running into her.
The parties used an Agreed Medical Evaluator to address both injury claims. The doctor provided
impairment ratings under the AMA Guides which resulted in 19% permanent disability for each arm.
He also offered an alternative rating per Almaraz/Guzman in which he estimated that the applicant
had lost 50% of her ability to use each arm. Since the maximum impairment for an arm is 60%, the
doctor assigned 30% impairment for each upper extremity.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge rejected the Almaraz/Guzman rating and issued two 19%
permanent disability awards.
The applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
denied the petition.
The Commissioners noted that an alternative rating may be used only when it more accurately
reflects the employee’s impairment and that an evaluator must show how and why the alternative
rating is more accurate than the AMA Guides rating. In doing so, the doctor cannot simply estimate
the loss of use of a body part and directly translate that number into a percentage of impairment to
the body part. “Loss of use is not directly proportional to impairment under the AMA Guides.”
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
25
AME’S GENERAL “CRITICISM” OF THE AMA GUIDES NOT SUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT ALMARAZ/GUZMAN RATING
CONSTANTINO vs. QUEENSCARE
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 35
Applicant received an award of 70% permanent disability resulting from a September 24, 2004 injury
to her back, right shoulder and psyche. The Workers’ Compensation Judge relied on the orthopedic
AME’s opinion rating the applicant’s lumbar spine injury at 45% Whole Person Impairment under
Almaraz/Guzman, rather than 31% WPI using a strict AMA Guides rating.
In his report explaining his alternative rating, the doctor stated that “the Guides do not take into
consideration pain or subjective factors, and does not take into consideration work restrictions or
inability to resume pre‐injury occupation.”
The defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that the AME’s opinion was not sufficient
to rebut the AMA Guides rating. The Board Panel agreed.
The Commissioners reviewed the history of Almaraz/Guzman and the requirement that an
evaluating physician explain “how and why” the alternative rating is most accurate. Here, the AME
did not explain why the AMA Guides scheduled rating did not accurately reflect the applicant’s
impairment. Rather, he offered a general criticism of the AMA Guides as a whole. That is not
sufficient to rebut the scheduled rating.
Using the scheduled rating, the applicant received an award of 54% permanent disability.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
26
VOCATIONAL EXPERT’S REPORT FAILS TO SUPPORT DIMINISHED FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY
GRAHAM vs. ECOLAB
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 119
Applicant alleged injury to his back, digestive system and psyche on September 8, 2008 while
working as a pest control employee for defendant.
Using a scheduled rating, applicant’s disability rated 35% permanent disability. However, applicant’s
attorney retained a vocational expert who, relying on an analysis of “similarly situated workers,”
opined that applicant had a diminished future earning capacity which would support an award of
78% permanent disability.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge rejected the vocational expert’s opinion as lacking substantial
evidence. Further, the reliance on an analysis of “similarly situated workers,” without addressing
applicant’s amenability to vocational rehabilitation, had already been rejected by the First District
Court of Appeal in Dahl.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge specifically cited the fact that the vocational expert had not met
with or even interviewed the applicant. As such, he did not learn that after his injury in California,
applicant had moved to Texas where he had worked at more than one job, had earnings of at least
$16 per hour, and had sustained a work‐related injury. Consequently, the vocational opinion was
not based on substantial evidence.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge awarded 35% permanent disability.
Applicant’s attorney filed a Petition for Reconsideration which was denied.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
27
TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY APPLIED ORTHOPEDIC APPORTIONMENT TO
ALL CATEGORIES OF PERMANENT DISABILITY
UNSWORTH vs. GRANDVIEW REAL ESTATE
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 193
Applicant was working as a project manager for defendant when he sustained injury to his spine,
hips, legs and psyche. The applicant was evaluated by Agreed Medical Examiners in orthopedics and
psychiatry.
The applicant’s medical history included a prior low back injury which required surgery and a
diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. The orthopedic AME found 30% Whole Person Impairment, with 25%
apportioned to the prior injury and non‐industrial medical condition.
The psychiatric AME diagnosed an organic brain syndrome secondary to multiple sclerosis;
depression; and long‐standing anxiety disorder. However, the doctor was of the opinion that, while
the industrial injury contributed to the depression and anxiety, it was not the predominant cause.
He also noted that as a result of the combined effect of the physical and psychological conditions,
applicant was permanently totally disabled.
The parties also utilized vocational experts, each of which agreed that the applicant could not
compete in the open labor market.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge found that applicant was permanently totally disabled as a result
of both industrial and non‐industrial factors and apportioned 75% of the impairment to the
industrial injury, relying on the orthopedic AME’s opinion.
Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the psychiatric injury did not meet the predominant
causation threshold and that the permanent disability award was not supported by the evidence.
The Commissioners rejected the defendant’s argument regarding predominant cause, since
defendant had stipulated to psychiatric injury on the Pre‐Trial Conference Statement.
However, they agreed that the Workers’ Compensation Judge had incorrectly found permanent
total disability, especially since the orthopedic AME had opined that from a strictly physical
standpoint, applicant could return to light work. They also found that the Workers’ Compensation
Judge had improperly applied the 25% orthopedic apportionment to the psychiatric impairment as
well.
The case was remanded to the Trial Judge to further develop the record on the issue of permanent
disability and apportionment.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
28
LABOR CODE §4664 APPORTIONMENT REQUIRES OVERLAP
BETWEEN CURRENT INJURY AND PRIOR AWARD
KUDELKA vs. CITY OF COSTA MESA
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 46
Applicant was employed by defendant City as a firefighter for approximately 29 years. On June 2,
2010, the applicant and City entered into Stipulations with Request for Award at 36% permanent
disability due to injury to the “heart [aortic valve replacement].”
On June 3, 2013, applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim alleging injury to the
circulatory system, skin, head and several other body systems. The applicant was evaluated by
various specialists and the DEU rated the reports a combined 76% permanent disability.
The injury to the circulatory system alone rated 57% and the Workers’ Compensation Judge
subtracted the prior award to the heart, resulting in 21% permanent disability for that body part.
He combined that impairment with the permanent disability for the other body parts and issued an
award of 48% permanent disability.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration. He argued that the prior award was for valvular heart
disease, while the current injury involves hypertensive heart disease. Therefore, the impairments
did not overlap. The WCAB Panel agreed.
The Commissioners noted that the two types of heart disease are distinct. The AMA Guides rates
valvular heart disease in Table 3‐5, while the hypertensive heart disease is rated in Table 4‐2.
Further, prior case law (City of Pasadena vs. WCAB) has held that hypertension and hypertensive
heart disease are distinct injuries, even when caused by the same exposure.
Because the two types of heart disease are distinct and separate injuries, defendant failed to
provide overlap as required in order to receive the benefit of Labor Code §4664 apportionment.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
29
APPLICANT INJURED ON WAY TO MEDICAL OFFICE VISIT FOR TWO INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ENTITLED
TO UNAPPORTIONED AWARD OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY
DAWSON vs. SAN DIEGO TRANSIT
(2015) 2015 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 745
Applicant was employed by the defendant as a bus driver for 34 years. During the course of her
employment, she sustained a number of injuries, including two separate injuries to her left and right
shoulders.
The applicant had undergone shoulder surgery. While traveling to her doctor’s office for a follow‐up
visit, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident which left her a quadriplegic. She sought
workers’ compensation benefits for permanent total disability because the injury occurred en route
to her industrial medical appointment.
The defendant did not dispute the fact that applicant was permanently totally disabled. However,
defendant argued that the permanent disability should be apportioned between the two shoulder
injuries for which the applicant was treating at the time of the motor vehicle accident.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge issued an unapportioned award of permanent total disability.
The defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration.
In denying reconsideration, the Board Panel noted that defendant failed to carry its burden of proof
on the issue of apportionment. Defendant failed to show that one or the other of the prior shoulder
injuries in any way caused or contributed to the applicant’s paralysis. The cause of her disability was
a spinal cord injury resulting from the motor vehicle accident, not her prior shoulder injuries.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
30
UTILIZATION REVIEW DENIAL MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO REQUESTING
DOCTOR VIA TELEPHONE, FAX OR EMAIL AND IN WRITING
DALLAS vs. PAN PACIFIC PETROLEUM
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 116
Applicant sustained injury to his back on January 9, 2011 for which he was entitled to receive future
medical care.
On September 4, 2014, his treating physician submitted a Request for Authorization for spinal
surgery. The defendant made a timely Utilization Review decision to non‐certify the requested
treatment. The decision was faxed to the treating doctor within 24 hours. However, thereafter, the
decision was not sent to the doctor in writing within two business days.
Applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness for expedited hearing. The Workers’ Compensation Judge
found that the Utilization Review decision was invalid because it was not communicated to the
doctor in writing within two business days following the initial fax notification. He awarded the
requested surgery.
Defendant filed a Petition for Removal (which should have been a Petition for Reconsideration). The
WCAB denied the petition.
The Board noted that Labor Code §4610(g)(3)(A) creates a two‐step process for timely
communication of a Utilization Review determination. Both steps (initial communication via
telephone, fax or email within 24 hours and written notification within two business days) must be
completed for the Utilization Review decision to be valid. Failure to comply with both steps
invalidates the Utilization Review decision and allows the Workers’ Compensation Judge to decide
the treatment issue.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
31
UNTIMELY UTILIZATION REVIEW DECISION IS INVALID AND WCAB MAY DETERMINE IF
REQUESTED TREATMENT IS REASONABLE AND SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE
THOMPSON vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 107
Applicant sustained an admitted injury to her back on June 15, 2007. She received a stipulated
award in 2011. Thereafter, applicant changed attorneys. Her new attorneys served defendants with
a Substitution of Attorneys form. However, the Board’s Official Address Record did not reflect the
change.
On March 26, 2015, applicant’s treating physician submitted a Request for Authorization for an L4‐5
laminectomy and microdiscectomy. On April 7, 2015, defendant’s Utilization Review company sent
a non‐certification letter to applicant’s former attorney, but not her current counsel.
After receiving the treatment denial, applicant’s attorney filed a Declaration of Readiness and the
matter was tried on November 16, 2015. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found that the
Utilization Review decision was invalid because it was not served on applicant’s current attorney.
He also awarded the requested treatment.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that the Utilization Review decision was
timely served on the applicant’s attorney as reflected on the Board’s service list. The WCAB rejected
that argument, especially since it was clear that the defendant had been notified of the Substitution
of Attorneys prior to the Utilization Review decision. However, the Board found that the need for
the medical treatment requested was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the
Workers’ Compensation Judge’s award of the treatment was annulled.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
32
WCAB GRANTS APPEAL OF IMR DECISION BASED ON MISTAKE OF FACT
GONZALEZ‐ORNELAS vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 151
Applicant sustained injury to her bilateral knees. On July 23, 2015, her treating physician submitted
a Request for Authorization to provide Synvisc injections for both knees. Defendant submitted the
request to Utilization Review and on July 30, 2015 a Utilization Review issued denying authorization.
Applicant requested Independent Medical Review of the Utilization Review denial. On September
11, 2015, the Utilization Review decision was upheld by IMR. On October 12, 2015, applicant
appealed the IMR decision pursuant to Labor Code §4610.6(h). The Workers’ Compensation Judge
denied the appeal and applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration.
The WCAB granted reconsideration and ordered a new IMR per Labor Code §§4610.6(h) and
4610.6(i). In support of the decision, the Panel noted that among the records submitted for review
by the IMR physician was a report from applicant’s doctor documenting various conservative
treatment attempts. However, the IMR decision stated, “There is no documentation that the
patient failed conservative therapies.” This constituted a mistake of fact on the part of the
reviewer. Therefore, a new IMR was appropriate.
Client Seminar July/August 2016 Mullen & Filippi, LLP
33
APPLICANT’S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN TREATMENT FROM
5 PHYSICIANS OUT OF MORE THAN 65 NAMES ON DEFENDANTS’
MPN DID NOT ALLOW APPLICANT TO TREAT OUTSIDE MPN
De GUEVARA vs. La GOLONDRINA
(2016) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. Lexis 84
Applicant sustained injury to her right upper extremity, lumbar spine and bilateral knees. The
defendants notified the applicant of its Medical Provider Network and provided a list of doctors
based on the applicant’s ZIP Code. The list contained more than 65 physicians.
Applicant contacted five doctors from the MPN list, all of whom refused to treat the applicant.
Based on these efforts, applicant alleged that treatment was not reasonably available within the
MPN. Therefore, she sought to treat outside the MPN.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge denied the request and applicant filed a Petition for Removal.
The WCAB denied the Petition for Removal, noting that defendants’ MPN had more than 50
orthopedic surgeons and 15 chiropractors within 15 miles of applicant’s ZIP Code. Given the large
number of doctors available, applicant’s attempts to contact only five were insufficient to allow her
to treat outside the MPN.