Timeliness of IMR

When an employee sustains a work-related injury, a complicated set of procedures is set into motion. An employee must receive treatment, an employer must complete paperwork, take witness statements, and submit a claim to its workers’ compensation insurance provider. While an employee receives medical treatment, his or her expenses for medical appointments, continuing treatment, and prescription medication will be submitted to the workers’ compensation insurance company. The claim will then go through a process called “utilization review,” wherein the insurance company will decide if the course of treatment is medically necessary. If the insurance company decides that the treatment is not necessary, it may modify or even outright deny the request for treatment. In such a case, the employee may then request an Independent Medical Review, or “IMR.”  During an IMR, the employee’s medical file is submitted to an independent medical professional who will then review the file and make a determination whether the utilization review made the right decision as to whether the treatment should be modified or denied.

California Labor Code 4610.6 provides several different time requirements for IMRs. Subdivision (d) provides that for any medical dispute not involving the drug formulary, the IMR must be conducted within thirty days of receipt of the request for review and the supporting documentation. A recent case styled Baker v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Sierra Pacific Fleet Services, et al. took on the issue of timeliness of IMRs and the impact that the failure to conduct the IMR in accordance with the statute’s timelines could have. In that case, the worker was injured after falling over some tools at work. He injured his knee, neck, and shoulder. His physician prescribed certain medication, but a utilization review recommended they be denied. On March 19, 2014, the worker requested an IMR. The administrative director failed to uphold the denial until July 21, 2014. The worker appealed this determination and the workers’ compensation judge ordered a new IMR. The new IMR again upheld the utilization review. The worker again appealed. The WCJ determined that the IMR determination was untimely under 4610.6, but that did not mean that the IMR was de facto invalid. The higher court agreed, and held that “an untimely IMR determination is valid and binding on the parties.”

The workers’ compensation process can be complicated. If you have a question about your case and the IMR process contact me today at (714) 516-8188.

Ratings and Reviews

CBLS