logologologo
  • (714) 547-5025
  • About
  • Explore
  • FAQ’s
  • News
  • Contact
logologologo
  • (714) 547-5025
  • About
  • Explore
  • FAQ’s
  • News
  • Contact
logologologo
  • (714) 547-5025
  • About
  • Explore
  • FAQ’s
  • News
  • Contact
  • (714) 547-5025
  • About
  • Explore
  • FAQ’s
  • News
  • Contact
by Thomas F. Martin
NewsJanuary 31, 20200 comments

Hey, Utilization Review….Do You Have A Plan?

You could have heard a pin drop. I was speaking to 100’s of lawyers at the January 2020 CAAA Convention about the legal requirements that Utilization Review companies must meet before they can issue valid denials of medical treatment requests. Judging by the comments afterward, there were big concerns from the defense bar about whether the paperwork masquerading as Utilization Review is even admissible as evidence.

There are significant reasons for claims administrators and their lawyers to be concerned – the legal requirements are mandatory:

Labor Code Section 4610 requires that every Utilization Review company have a “Utilization Review Process” that complies with the law before treatment requests can be legally denied or modified. The Utilization Review Process shall:

  • Be consistent with the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule ( MTUS )
  • Be accredited by URAC before 7/1/18
  • Be submitted to the Administrative Director for approval
  • Be developed with involvement with actively practicing physicians
  • Be evaluated annually, and updated as necessary
  • Disclosed to the physician that is requesting the treatment and to the injured worker

These requirements are IN ADDITION to all the other legal mandates that apply to Utilization Review, including communicating the Utilization Review decision in a timely manner. 

Is this a big deal? The California Supreme Court thinks so. In its decision Sandhagen vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund, the court regarded the Utilization Review Process as the “most significant” standard for evaluating treatment requests. 

Here is the bottom line – if a Utilization Review company denies or delays a medical treatment request, the defense attorney better shows up to court with proof that a legally valid Utilization Review Process was in place. 

Good luck with that. See you in court. 

Tags:
medical treatment Utilization Review Worker’s Compensation
The Injured Workers Puzzle Picture Part 4: Choosing Your Treating PhysicianPrev
Ripoff: Taxpayers Subsidize The "Gig Economy"Next

Latest Posts

by Thomas F. Martin

Ignoring The Law : Nursing Homes Not Reporting Employee Deaths

The pandemic has exposed the fact that some people just can’t seem to follow the law. Like the drivers doing 100 MPH on the freeway endangering everyone...

Ignoring The Law : Nursing Homes Not Reporting Employee Deaths

COVID-19, NewsFebruary 24, 2021
by Thomas F. Martin

Despite Legal Protections For Workers, Insurance Companies Still Deny COVID-19 Claims

Some States have attempted to protect certain classes of workers when they are infected with COVID-19 by passing new laws. Nevertheless, huge insurance...

Despite Legal Protections For Workers, Insurance Companies Still Deny COVID-19 Claims

NewsFebruary 22, 2021
by Thomas F. Martin

Hero Pay Retaliation: Punishing Workers and Customers?

Corporate greed and retaliation aren’t new - but it is especially disgusting when it rears its ugly head in the midst of a pandemic while its workers are...

Hero Pay Retaliation: Punishing Workers and Customers?

NewsFebruary 16, 2021
logo

Quick Links

  • Home
  • About
  • Explore
  • FAQ’s
  • Blog
  • Contact

Address

2107 North Broadway
Suite 206
Santa Ana, CA 92706

Phone

714-547-5025

Find Us

The information appearing on this website are provided for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice or opinions. Transmission or receipt of any information through this website shall not create or establish an attorney-client relationship, and do not act or rely upon any information appearing on this website without seeking specific and competent legal advice from an attorney. Laws are constantly changing, and the information appearing on this website may be outdated and inapplicable to your circumstances and are not guaranteed.

 

Testimonials found on this website are actual past client reviews of Thomas F. Martin PLC. We appreciate our clients and their willingness to share their experiences. Please keep in mind that these results do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

 

DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THROUGH THIS WEBSITE since an attorney-client relationship will only be established by a written retainer of Thomas F Martin PLC, and in no other way. Each case is unique, therefore testimonials and endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your potential case. Required Notice: "Making a false or fraudulent worker's compensation claim is a felony subject to up to 5 years in prison or a fine of up to $50,000 or double the value of the fraud, whichever is greater, or by both imprisonment and fine".

en English
en Englishes Spanish